Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

IPSWICH PORT AUTHORITY BILL

Lords amendments agreed to.

ALCOHOLIC'S ANONYMOUS (DISPOSITIONS) BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

BOURNEMOUTH-SWANAGE MOTOR ROAD AND FERRY BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered.

Ordered,
That Standing Order 205 (Notice of third reading) he suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

BROMBOROUGH DOCK BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered.

Ordered,
That Standing Order 205 (Notice of third reading) be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Queen's consent having been signified—

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

PORT OF FOSDYKE BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Labour Statistics

Mr. Evans: asked the Paymaster General what is the present rate of unemployment; and how it compares with the figures for June 1983 and June 1979, respectively.

The Paymaster General and Minister for Employment (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The seasonally adjusted level of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom this June represented 11·7 per cent. of the working population. Estimates on a consistent basis for June 1983 and June 1979 were 10·8 and 4·2 per cent. respectively.

Mr. Evans: Will the Paymaster General confirm that, despite the 16th massaging of the figures since the Government took office, the underlying level of unemployment is at its highest point for over 50 years?

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that virtually every employers' organisation has joined the Select Committee on Employment in demanding a Government programme of infrastructure work, which would not only put hundreds of thousands of people back to work, but would improve the nation's productivity? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledge that the overwhelming majority of the people now want measures to tackle unemployment even more than income tax cuts?

Mr. Clarke: The rate of unemployment is too high, and reflects the difficulty of creating new jobs quickly enough to keep up with the rising numbers of people looking for work. The fact is that over 1 million new jobs have been created in the British economy since spring 1983, and the rate of employment—people in work—has gone up by 4·3 per cent. since the first quarter of 1983, but obviously we have to improve on that record. I am intrigued to see that the hon. Gentleman is now going back to infrastructure spending as the cure. I continue to watch the varying suggestions put forward by the Opposition as to how they can live up to their claims for reducing unemployment.

Mr. Sayeed: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there are now more people in work in my constituency of Bristol, East? Is he further aware that that trend is reflected throughout the country?

Mr. Clarke: There are more people at work in this country all the time. We actually have a higher proportion of our population of working age in work than any other country in western Europe, apart from Denmark. Of course, we are having to tackle the problem that all the time more young people and more women are entering the labour force, so that we still have not caught up with the level of unemployment.

Mr. Leighton: Is the Minister aware that in 1978 unemployment fell by 90,000. In 1979 it fell by 60,000. In the following year, 1980, after the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Government came into office, unemployment increased by 700,000. In 1981 unmployment rose by over 900,000 and it has risen every year since. Is that not because the Government's economic policies have turned off the engines of economic growth and wealth creation? We are producing fewer manufactured goods now than we were in 1979. When will the Minister show some contrition and apologise to the unemployed, rather than taking the flippant attitude that he does to this disaster?

Mr. Clarke: I have not been flippant. The hon. Gentleman's figures cannot disguise the fact that, in 1979, the country's economy was in a dire state. A great deal of our industry was in a non-competitive condition. When the last Labour Government left office we were set on a course for higher unemployment and the world recession made it worse. However, unemployment rose at a faster rate in West Germany than it rose here. We are now back on the road to recovery. The number of new jobs in the British economy continues to rise steadily, quarter by quarter, and has done ever since early 1983.

Mr. Charles Wardle: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall a book written by the general secretary of the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs when the last Labour Government held office? Its title was "The Collapse of Work" and it postulated an


unemployment level of 5 million under that Labour Government because of Britain's lack of competitiveness. Does he agree that unemployment could rapidly reach the level contemplated by Mr. Clive Jenkins if Opposition Members were ever able to put their inflationary spending plans into practice?

Mr. Clarke: I certainly recall some such analysis. I think the figure of 5 million people unemployed is wholly credible when one looks at the state of the economy as the last Labour Government left it in 1979. Unemployment would probably be at that figure now were it not for the fact that we are in the sixth successive year of economic growth and we are witnessing a steady increase in the number of new jobs in the economy.

Mr. Wainwright: Is the Minister aware that during the first quarter of this year and for the first time in several years there was an actual .decrease in the number of employees in employment. The Government were only saved from the greater embarrassment of a decrease in the national total of people at work, of any kind, by the convenient arrival of a round figure of 30,000 people assumed to be in self employment and hence representing an increase in the numbers at work. Will he explain to the House the particular witchcraft by which figures like this 30,000 are produced in respect of the self-employed?

Mr. Clarke: There is a changing pattern of employment in this country. For some years the number of people in self-employment have been steadily rising. More than one person in 10 working in this country is now working on his own account. The estimates that have been produced are carefully calculated. They are checked regularly against the labour force survey and are produced by well-tried methods showing the estimated increase month by month. There is no witchcraft in it. These are careful, accurate statistics, as has been well proven in the past.

Mr. Marland: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we are facing another industrial revolution? The reason why it is so painful has been the reluctance of past politicians and trade union leaders to embrace new and modern technology for the opportunities that it offers.

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. The attempt to delay the impact of new technology and to ignore the increased competitive pressures of the 1970s led to the disaster that we eventually suffered at the end of that decade and the beginning of this one. What is happening now is that new industries are emerging, more people are working in smaller businesses, we are witnessing a good rate of new business creation and more people are working in self-employment. The labour market is changing, but it is providing more jobs. We must not allow the Opposition's policies to try to put the clock back.

Unemployment Benefit Service

Mr. Allen McKay: asked the Paymaster General if he has any plans to increase the efficiency of the unemployment benefit service.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: asked the Paymaster General if he plans to make any changes in the operation of unemployment benefit offices.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Ian Lang): A variety of changes in the

unemployment benefit service are planned and under way to improve efficiency, service and the control of public funds.
Amongst the most significant is the installation of new computer terminals in local offices, which will reduce staff work and provide better information to claimants.

Mr. Allan McKay: I thank the Minister for that reply and for the increased efficiency of the offices. With regard to increased efficiency, does the Minister agree that redundant mineworkers, like any other redundant workers, do on occasion need help and advice concerning unemployment and welfare benefits? If the Minister agrees, will he withdraw the directive sent to the offices on 15 April, and, if he does not, will he put his reasons in the Official Report?

Mr. Lang: We often give help to unemployment benefit offices to enable them to assist applicants for unemployment benefit. These are complex issues involving the interrelation between the redundant mineworkers payment scheme and the unemployment benefit service. Such guidance as has been given has been intended to give assistance to people in those circumstances and has involved the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: If the Minister's claim that advice was given in an attempt to help the miners is sincere, why did the letter to unemployment benefit offices quite specifically say that in no circumstances should advice be given to miners about whether they were entitled to claim unemployment benefit? Will he confirm that miners have been singled out for a vindictive and squalid little campaign to prevent them from drawing what they are entitled to?

Mr. Lang: Miners have not been singled out. Advice is often given in these circumstances. The intention of the circular was to enable us to be sure that unemployment offices would not give wrong advice to mineworkers and thus prejudice their interests.

Mr. Latham: Will my hon. Friend have a look at the Public Accounts Committee's report and ask himself whether there is a good case for merging these offices with the DHSS?

Mr. Lang: I shall certainly look at the report. The two organisations perform essentially different activities, but there is scope for improved co-operation between them.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: As one who was made unemployed by Robert Maxwell years ago — he was perhaps the worst employer in the country, and, I believe, still is—may I ask my hon. Friend to investigate how people claim unemployment benefit and the ease with which somebody whose name begins with B for Bruinvels can make a claim at 9.15 am and get a job for the rest of the day, not that I ever did that?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is on to a serious and important issue which is being given close attention by my Department.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Dormand: asked the Paymaster General what was the number of persons unemployed for one year and two years, respectively, at May 1979 and at the latest available date.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Direct comparisons of unemployment by duration since 1979 are not possible because of changes in the way figures are collected. However, on 5 April 1979 the numbers of people in the United Kingdom who had been registered unemployed for over one year and over two years were 366,700 and 179,800 respectively. The corresponding numbers of unemployed claimants as at 10 April 1986 were 1,356,500 and 845,200 respectively.

Mr. Dormand: Does the Paymaster General agree that those appalling comparisons are the biggest condemnation of the Government's economic policies? I remind him yet again that the number of long-term unemployed now is greater than the total number unemployed people when Labour left office. When will he recognise that the present tinkering with schemes does not meet the problem and that there will have to be a fundamental change of policy? He should come to my constituency and talk to some of the long-term unemployed and see what they think about what he is doing.

Mr. Clarke: I agree that long-term unemployment is the biggest social problem that faces the country. It is more serious than the total figure, which disguises the fact that 500,000 people find a new job each month. The 1.4 million long-term unemployed are those to whom we are giving particular attention. Every long-term unemployed person in the hon. Gentleman's constituency will be interviewed during the next few months under the restart initiative, and each will be offered eight different ways in which he might get back into work. That will continue the considerable success that we have already enjoyed in the nine pilot areas.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the main reasons why this country suffers from high levels of long-term unemployment is the legacy of the anti-business, anti-enterprise, anti-profit policies which were pursued by the last Labour Government?

Mr. Clarke: Yes, and it is extremely important to reverse that part of our culture. That is why our Department and others concentrate so heavily on, for example, the business expansion scheme to encourage investment in new business, and why we are constantly strengthening the small business service and local enterprise agencies and all the other methods that we have to encourage enterprise culture.

Mr. O'Brien: Will the Paymaster General accept the view advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) about there being large pockets of unemployment, especially in mining areas where there have been pit closures? Will he take on board the fact that unemployment in those areas is high and that the number of people who have been unemployed for 12 months or more is high? Will he do something about that and ensure that unemployment is brought down, and that employment is created in mining constituencies?

Mr. Clarke: I accept the need for efforts of that kind and I am glad that the National Coal Board's enterprise company has been so successful in helping people to establish themselves in business and to bring new businesses into the coalfields. We need more efforts of that kind and more successes of the kind being achieved in places such as Consett and Corby, steel towns which where

badly hit by redundancies. The same needs to be done wherever major redundancies occur in older, traditional industries.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: While unemployment is so high, does my right hon. and learned Friend think it justified to allow more than 250,000 Irish nationals to work in the British economy?

Mr. Clarke: That is a long-standing issue, going back to the creation of the Irish Republic in the 1920s. Free movement of labour is an important principle of the European Community, from which we benefit as much as anyone else. Questions about access of Irish citizens to this country are best referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Prescott: The Paymaster General now officially recognises that more than 1 million more people have been unemployed for more than 12 months since the Government came to power. As the Government profess concern for those people, does he accept that recent changes to the Social Security Bill mean that a married man with two children taking a community scheme job will face a cut in pay or a suspension in benefit for 13 weeks? Is a conscripted labour force the Government's alternative policy?

Mr. Clarke: I appreciate that that is one reason why the community programme is more attractive to younger and single employees. Tomorrow we shall be discussing reforms in the social security system which improve support for low-earning heads of families. That will be of great benefit to people wishing to get into work and away from unemployment. The job start allowance, now available nationally, provides a £20 a week allowance for a man obliged to take a low-paid job as his first job back in work. That will also help.

Job Creation

Mr. Yeo: asked the Paymaster General what steps his Department is taking to seek to reduce unemployment in the town of Haverhill.

Mr. Lang: The Government's economic strategy is providing the climate of low inflation and sustained growth which is the only sensible way to secure real jobs in Haverhill and elsewhere. Haverhill will also benefit from the new package of measures announced in the Budget to accelerate the growth of enterprise, boost employment opportunities for the young and help the long-term unemployed find work.

Mr. Yeo: Is my hon. Friend aware that Haverhill has the most severe unemployment problem in my constituency and that although many of the measures to which he has referred are both welcome and helpful, his Department's initiatives are frequently obstructed by shortcomings in the policies of other Departments? Is he aware, for example, that Haverhill is blighted by poor road communications and is a victim of extremely poor and inadequate strategic planning? Will he prevail on his colleagues in other Departments to consider the employment implications of their policies when working them out?

Mr. Lang: We constantly try to co-operate with other Departments in formulating Government policies, but I


shall pass on my hon. Friend's remarks to my colleagues. With regard to my own Department, I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome the substantial involvement in his constituency in the youth training scheme and community programmes and the fact that in the Norfolk and Suffolk area some 4,000 people have benefited from the enterprise allowance scheme since it started.

Maternity Leave

Mr. Pike: asked the Paymaster General how many women will lose maternity leave rights under the proposals contained in the White Paper "Building Businesses…not Barriers."

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The White Paper is based on the need to reduce employment costs to industry if we are to increase the prospect of additional jobs for men and women. The White Paper proposals affect the right to return to work after maternity absence, but no women would lose maternity rights for which they have already qualified. It is very difficult to estimate how many expectant mothers would subsequently be affected by any changes.

Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that if the White Paper proposals are fully implemented, in the future the majority of women will lose their right to maternity benefit? Does he agree that removing rights and protection given to women in the past is an appalling way to proceed in 1986, and is the wrong way for the Government to go?

Mr. Clarke: I am not sure what aspect the hon. Gentleman is concerned about. Maternity pay is not affected by our White Paper, although it is affected by changes being made by another Department. With regard to the right to return to work, the difficulty is that for a small firm it is a considerable burden to keep a job open for up to 40 weeks for someone who might exercise the right to return. That is why we made the proposals in the White Paper. It is very difficult to achieve the right balance between the need to protect employees and the need to keep industrial costs down. We believe that the balance needs to be shifted further so that employers are not deterred, for example, from employing young women.

Mr. Cash: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept our congratulations on publishing the White Paper, which has shown that this country can be properly governed by a Government who are determined to ensure that we put businesses before barriers and that we get rid of unnecessary regulations in line with the requirements of a modern economy?

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. My right hon. and noble Friend and I are constantly being invited to make speeches abroad, particularly in western Europe, where the interest in this kind of approach to encouraging jobs in industry is steadily growing and where a number of other Governments are plainly proposing to imitate us.

Ms. Richardson: Thanks to Government changes in the employment protection laws, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that maternity provision in the United Kingdom will now be more restrictive and maternity benefits the lowest of any EEC country? As this year marks the 10th anniversary of the implementation of the statutory right of women to return to work after child birth, is not the White Paper "Building Businesses…not Barriers" a rotten gift to give to women?

Mr. Clarke: I am not sure about the hon. Lady's comparisons, but we already have a higher proportion of women in work and a lower level of unemployment among women than in most other western European countries. Those European countries which on paper have stronger maternity protection than we do have probably reduced the job opportunities for women.

Wage Rates

Mr. McKelvey: asked the Paymaster General what is his latest estimate of firms paying workers less than wages councils' minimum rates in (a) Scotland and (b) England and Wales; and how many subsequent prosecutions have taken place.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Trippier): No estimates of the number of firms paying workers less than the wages councils' minimum rates have been made. However, Wages Inspectorate statistics for 1985 show that 20.8 per cent. of all establishments checked in Scotland were underpaying one or more of their workers. The corresponding figure for England and Wales was 22.4 per cent. But these figures are not representative of all firms because the inspectorate tends to concentrate on the firms more likely to be underpaying. In the same year, no firms in Scotland and two firms in England and Wales were prosecuted for offences under wages council legislation.

Mr. McKelvey: Am I correct in my view that the Minister is saying that 3,000 firms in Scotland alone do not pay the minimum rate—in other words, they pay less than the scab rate—and that not one prosecution has taken place? I should like the House to know, because it has the right to know, whether any political instructions have been given to procurators fiscal not to prosecute in these cases. What is happening is a national scandal, coming as it does from a party that is supposed to stand for law and order.

Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman has extrapolated ingeniously but wholly incorrectly the figures to which I referred in my substantive answer. It will be interesting for the hon. Gentleman to hear the contrast between what is happening now and what happened when the Labour Government were last in office. In the three years to 1978, the last full year in which the Labour party was in office, 35·4 per cent. of establishments inspected were found to be underpaying. Under the last Labour Government, the average number of prosecutions was five a year. Since 1980, under this Government, the average number of prosecutions has been the same.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that procurators fiscal in Scotland have always enjoyed discretion in relation to prosecutions? I say that as the parliamentary spokesman for the procurators fiscal. Does my hon. Friend also agree that we, as the party of law and order, believe that when the law is seen not to be effective and not to be working, the answer is to change the law? That is exactly what we are doing.

Mr. Trippier: Whether such cases go to the procurator fiscal depends on the recommendation of the various inspectorates that operate either in England and Wales or in Scotland. Under successive Governments—Labour as well as Conservative — the policy has been to seek


compliance with the legislation by advice and persuasion. A prosecution is considered where the offence is deliberate or repeated and the evidence is adequate.

Ms. Clare Short: Will the Minister confirm that we have a rising trend of employers breaking the criminal law and paying the poorest in society less than they are entitled to? Will he confirm that the Government have dealt with that problem by cutting by one third the number of wages inspectors and now, in the Wages Bill, by introducing a law which will weaken protection and promises further cuts in the inspectorate? The Government are inviting employers to break the law more frequently at the cost of the poorest workers.

Mr. Trippier: Nothing would invite employers more to break the law than the statements that we have heard from the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends, which give employers the impression that they will get away with it. The truth is stated in a letter which I sent to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), which has been widely circulated and of which the hon. Lady is aware. The legislation is changing because we are removing a great deal of the bureaucracy that has been operating in this area with incredibly complicated wages councils orders. Employers who in future try to claim that they cannot comply with wages councils orders simply because they do not understand them will be in a much weaker position than would otherwise be the case. I made that point in my letter. Wages councils will now be free from their former complexity and it will be simpler and quicker to check compliance. I do not accept that there is a rising trend of law-breaking among employers, as the hon. lady suggested.

Payment of Bills

Mr. Ottaway: asked the Paymaster General what response he has received to the guidance booklet on payment of bills published on 20 May.

Mr. Trippier: I have received a considerable volume of correspondence from public bodies, large and small firms and small business organisations welcoming this initiative. Many small businesses continue to emphasise the problems that late payment causes them.

Mr. Ottaway: My hon. Friend is on record as having said that if the voluntary code does not work he will introduce legislation, and some of us would like to see that sooner rather than later. How does he intend to monitor the success of the voluntary code, and for how long?

Mr. Trippier: I have one effective way of monitoring the success of the code, which is that 130,000 copies were printed and I have recently authorised the reprinting of it, so demand is considerable. I am sure that my hon. Friend would welcome that. I have said that we may have to consider legislation if the pilot scheme does not work, but that could be hazardous. Many people in various small firms organisations have made representations to me that on some occasions small firms do not pay the bills of other small firms on time and that sometimes small firms do not pay the bills of large firms on time. If legislation were introduced some small firms—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am trying to hear what is being

Mr. Skinner: Does the Minister recall that more than seven years ago the Government were elected on the basis

of relieving small firms of all the difficulties which the Tories believed surrounded them? It is now seven years later and the Tory Government have hammered small businesses to such an extent that the Government must now give them advice on how to pay their bills What happened to the entrepreneurial society that was to produce all the wonderful profits with the help of the Government's policies? Would it not be nice for the 150,000 firms that have gone bankrupt during the past seven years to have even a letterbox through which to receive the code of conduct?

Mr. Trippier: That shows how much the hon. Gentleman is out of touch with what is going on in the small business community. The figures on the small firms front show a higher net increase in small businesses than has ever been recorded. We are involved in a code of practice for late payment of bills because we know that there is a cash problem when large firms delay the payment of bills to small firms.

Mr. Bellingham: While my hon. Friend is reluctant to introduce legislation at this stage, is he aware that many small firms feel strongly about the matter, and will he keep it under review? What extra pressures could be put on some of the biggest firms in the land, which pay bills only twice or three times a year?

Mr. Trippier: When I sent the code of practice to the 100 largest firms in the country—as my hon. Friend is suggesting, a number of them are guilty of delaying payments of bills — I found the response to be comforting. I am sure that the combination of the code of practice and the Finance Act 1982, which allows interest to be charged as long as the matter has been taken to court, will be effective.

Youth Training Scheme

Mr. Ashdown: asked the Paymaster General if he will make a statement on the number of two-year YTS places actually contracted for.

Mr. Trippier: At 1 July, the latest date for which statistics are available, contracts had been signed for 332,480 YTS places. This is nearly three quarters of the places we shall need during this year, and represents very good progress.

Mr. Ashdown: Is the Minister aware that, according to figures that have been published by the Youth Training Board, only 44 per cent. of basic places had been contracted for by May and that a full 80 per cent. were still under negotiation? Will he say how much of an improvement that is? Does he realise that there is considerable concern among larger firms that the MSC is seeking to fill the old mode B-type places, with the result that it is having to suffer considerable delays in the placements that it would like to offer? Will the Minister explain what he intends to do about this?

Mr. Trippier: I do not accept the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, but I can update him on the first part. The latest figures show that 88 per cent. of the places that we need have been approved by AMBs. That is the definitive figure. It compares with 79 per cent. at this time last year, and that is substantial progress.

Mr. Dorrell: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most worrying aspects of the present unemployment


position is a co-existence of high rates of employment and emerging skill shortages? Does it not follow that the increased investment that the Government are making in ensuring that the training effort is more closely attuned to labour needs will in the end reduce unemployment? Is it not extraordinary that Opposition parties that claim to espouse the cause of the unemployed should be so anxious to belittle the efforts that the Government are making?

Mr. Trippier: I welcome my hon. Friend's supplementary question and I agree with every word of it. We are trying to concentrate, as he has suggested, on more work-related training with the YTS. We think that a start should be made before young people leave school. Thus, there is a good reason for pushing TVEI, which is work-related. The two schemes are complementary.

Mr. James Hamilton: Will the Minister recognise that many of the young people who have been contracted to YTS schemes are not being taught any skills? Many of them are carrying out labouring-type jobs and, as a result, many of them are disillusioned. I sent a letter yesterday to the Paymaster General setting out the case of a young person who had been contracted to a YTS scheme and who had done a labourer's job from start to finish.

Mr. Trippier: My right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General and I will consider the hon. Gentleman's letter. We shall study it carefully and respond as positively as we can. I think that he is wrong to suggest that young people on YTS schemes are disillusioned. The facts prove that more than 80 per cent. of those who have taken advantage of YTS places are satisfied with the training that they have received.

Mr. Lawler: Will my hon. Friend confirm the experience that I have had which is that in my constituency a significant number of young people are taking up YTS schemes voluntarily as a first option, and that others are giving up dead-end jobs, which they went into on leaving school, to go into the YTS to acquire a skill? Will he encourage the MSC to maintain the publicity campaign, which has been so successful, to counter some of the sniping criticism that comes from some Opposition Members and others?

Mr. Trippier: I welcome the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. We are anxious, with the MSC much in the lead, to continue the publicity that seems to be widely welcomed throughout the country and not only by my right hon. and hon. Friends. The degree of flexibility that we have introduced to the scheme encourages youngsters who have never thought of self-employment, for example, to contemplate it. That is to be widely welcomed as well.

Mr. Sheerman: Is the Minister aware that there are serious difficulties emerging in various areas on mode B provision? Even on the April figures, 132 sponsors of mode B provision had given up, which equates to 10 to 12 per cent. of the places. Is there not a worrying tendency for inner urban area places and places that are open especially to young black people to diminish? What will the Minister do to encourage more YTS places in the inner cities and for more young blacks?

Mr. Trippier: I do not share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the premium places—not mode B places; we do not call them that. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) referred only to the actual places, not to

the premium places. Those figures are higher. Ninety-seven per cent. of places have been approved. Our interest is in getting youngsters on to YTS. Where a number of managing agents have been saying that their schemes are closing down, my concern has been to make sure that all the youngsters previously covered by the scheme are adequately covered by the new scheme. The figure of 97 per cent. is very impressive.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Flannery: asked the Paymaster General what is the figure of unemployment in the Sheffield travel-to-work area; and what percentage this is of the potential work force.

Mr. Lang: On 12 June 1986 the number of unemployed claimants in the Sheffield travel-to-work area was 46,700, which represents a local unemployment rate of 16·1 per cent.

Mr. Flannery: Does the Minister remember the poster put out during the 1979 election campaign, to try to prove to the people that the Tories would get them all back to work? Will he undertake to come to the great east end of Sheffield, which lies so still and quiet, remembering only the promises made at that time? Will he hold out to our people some hope of returning to work? Will he come and see what his Government have done to working people? There are 16·9 per cent. out of work, and many others too, although the Government will not admit it.

Mr. Lang: We are certainly concerned about the level of unemployment in Sheffield and elsewhere. I regularly visit Sheffield. On one recent visit I called in at the job club at Woodhouse. The hon. Gentleman may care to know that that club enjoys considerable success, placing 78 per cent. of its members in jobs.

Mr. Dickens: Did we not come to office in the face of a world recession? Did we not come to office to be faced with over-manning through the cosy arrangements of the Socialists and the Lib-Lab pact? Did we not have to face the bulge year for school leavers? Have we not outstripped the rest of Europe in job creation? Are there not more people working today than ever before? Is not 1987 likely to be a good year for getting people back to work?

Mr. Lang: In spite of the difficulties described by my hon. Friend, we have managed to ensure that over 5,000 people in the Sheffield area are benefiting from the youth training scheme and over 5,000 from the community programme. We have also managed to make sure that Sheffield has benefited from £8·5 million in regional assistance since 1979, and has been allocated over £4 million under the urban programme for the current year.

Mr. Duffy: Is the Minister aware that the recently published report of the Sheffield careers service declares that there is no real improvement in employment opportunities for young people? Last year—the seventh year of Tory Government — it had the dubious distinction of returning the highest recorded figures for youth unemployment in the history of Sheffield. Which of the Government's policies will relieve those figures?

Mr. Lang: I have just referred to 5,000 places under the youth training scheme. Under the two-year scheme, the number of places in the current year will be 6,000. The number of unfilled vacancies at jobcentres in the area has risen by 53 per cent.

Technical and Vocational Education Initiative

Mr. Rowe: asked the Paymaster General how many schools and colleges will be participating in the technical and vocational education initiative by the end of the current year.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: There are likely to be about 660 schools and colleges participating in the TVEI pilot projects by the end of 1986.

Mr. Rowe: Is that not a remarkable achievement, and one that is very much to be desired and that will go a long way towards meeting some of the skill shortages of which we have heard this afternoon? Will my right hon. and learned Friend take steps to ensure that when the young people concerned enter employment they are properly managed by kicking some of these companies —especially the 20 per cent. of large companies—which do no management training at all and therefore ill-treat or misuse the skills which my right hon. and learned Friend takes such care to develop at school?

Mr. Clarke: ; I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his commendation of the steps that we have taken so far. Our experience shows that the improvement in the curriculum in schools and the greater work experience that it gives the pupils is now very popular with teachers, parents, pupils and potential employers of those coming out, which is why we have announced the national extension of the project. Industry still needs to put more effort into training in Britain. We continue to encourage firms to do so and we continue to give positive support to those firms which do.

Mr. Eastham: In uttering statements about making available £900 million over 10 years, was the Paymaster General not deceiving the people, because in fact only £12 million has been allocated for next year and only £41 million for the year after, which is only a drop in the ocean?

Mr. Clarke: The national extension is being phased in, which is why the expenditure builds up to an average of £90 million a year over the next 10 years. Obviously, it is necessary to phase in the national extension, building on the success of the pilots. The figure that we and the hon. Gentleman have cited is being provided for the initiative because of its value to pupils and industry.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Favell: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 July.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty The Queen. Tonight I shall be attending a dinner at the United States embassy in honour of Mrs. Reagan.

Mr. Favell: On the day that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has announced his attack on NHS waiting lists, will my right hon. Friend consider the outstanding success of the partnership, in Wales between the NHS and the private sector in tackling a shortfall in kidney dialysis treatment? Is my right hon.

Friend aware that the number of new patients has trebled as a result of that partnership, and is not there a great deal for the rest of the United Kingdom to learn from that?

The Prime Minister: We welcome the involvement of the private sector in the NHS making provision for services of that kind, which give excellent value for money. They often enable people on NHS lists to get much-needed treatment more quickly. It is for the local health authority to evaluate the treatment, but we wish that scheme well and hope that there will be more.

Mr. Steel: In all her considerations with our Commonwealth partners of the measures that we should be taking against the South African Government, what weight does the Prime Minister attach to her need to safeguard the position of Her Majesty as head of the Commonwealth?

The Prime Minister: As I said last week, Mr. Speaker, I propose to follow the well-established practice of my predecessors and not answer questions, direct or indirect, about the monarchy.

Sir Edward Gardner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the two main aims of any policy towards South Africa should be, first, to end as soon as possible the system of apartheid, and, secondly, and equally important, to protect the victims of apartheid from any unnecessary and avoidable suffering and bloodshed? Does she further agree that both those aims must overrule and override all other considerations, including who will or will not take part in the Commonwealth Games?

The Prime Minister: I wholly agree with my hon. and learned Friend. It is our aim to end apartheid as soon as possible—[HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] By negotiation, and by not applying punitive sanctions, which would hit those whom we most wish to help. I agree wholly with my hon. and learned Friend that the games are the Commonwealth Games, and it would be best if those who have thought of boycotting them would reconsider their decision and come and join in those games.

Mr. Kinnock: Following the Harare meeting last week, is it not clear that a categorical statement from the Prime Minister to the effect that the British Government win impose sanctions against South Africa would increase the probability of restoring participation in the games, would improve the prospects of the Heads of Government meeting in August reaching productive conclusions, and would at the same time strengthen the hand of the Foreign Secretary in his visit in South Africa. Will the Prime Minister now make such a categorical statement?

The Prime Minister: No, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman is asking me to make a categorical statement before the Heads of Government meet to consider the matter. That is absurd.

Mr. Kinnock: By failing to make such a categorical statement at this stage, a categorical statement for which Commonwealth leaders both black and white have repeatedly asked, the Prime Minister is spoiling the games, is fracturing the Commonwealth and is sabotaging the mission of her own Foreign Secretary. Does she not realise that the Harare statement was an olive branch, or is she in such a state of paranoia that she cannot tell the difference between an olive branch and a club?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is asking us to reach a conclusion or to commit ourselves to a conclusion before the meeting which meets to consider the matter. That is an absurd way of going about any Heads of Government conference.
With regard to the Commonwealth Games, I stress that they do not belong to Britain or to Scotland. They belong to the Commonwealth. The countries which are withdrawing are damaging their own games and damaging the chances of their own athletes. In relation to the Heads of Government conference, we shall consider before we conclude.

Mr. Kinnock: The one thing that the Prime Minister says that is true is that the Commonwealth Games are not directly her business. What is her business is the withdrawals from the games, because that is entirely her fault. When she says that to make a categorical statement in favour of sanctions is absurd, is she saying that Rajiv Gandhi, Bob Hawke and Brian Mulroney and all the rest are absurd?

The Prime Minister: I am adhering to the Nassau accord. The Heads of Government, or their representatives, after the appropriate time, will then meet to review the situation. If in their opinion adequate progress has not been made within this period, we agree to consider the adoption of further measures. The right hon. Gentleman is following his old trick of reaching a conclusion before the meeting is even held.

Mr. Cyril Townsend: Bearing in mind the nature of the crisis in South Africa and Britain's pivotal position inside the international community on this issue, will my right hon. Friend at least keep open the possibility of personal talks with the state President, inside or outside South Africa, in the critical weeks ahead?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary goes to South Africa today to have talks with the President and a number of other people in South Africa—for more than one set of talks—and he may need to go again later. Obviously, I should like to consider the results of what he is able to achieve as President of the 12 countries of the Community before saying anything further. I do not exclude what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Craigen: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Craigen: Does the Prime Minister know, and if she does will she tell us, whether some of the recent comments about the rift between No. 10 and the Palace on South Africa have arisen from certain sections of the Tory establishment—

Mr. Dickens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. [Interruption.]

Mr. Craigen: —have arisen from certain sections of the Tory establishment who feel that she has been in the job too long as Prime Minister and has developed monarchical tendencies of the absolutist kind?

The Prime Minister: I make it clear once again that I propose to follow the well-established practice of my predecessors and not answer direct or indirect questions

about the monarch. I note that the hon. Gentleman has no complaints about how the Government are running the affairs of this country.

West Derbyshire

Mr. McLoughlin: asked the Prime Minister whether she has any plans to visit West Derbyshire.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.

Mr. McLoughlin: My constituents in West Derbyshire will be sorry to hear that my right hon. Friend has no plans to visit West Derbyshire at present. If she were able to visit West Derbyshire, they would tell her of their pleasure about yesterday's announcement by the Post Office of record profits and about the recent announcement of the profits of the—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has not been here for very long and he should be given consideration in asking his question.

Mr. McLoughlin: They would also tell her of their pleasure about profits recently announced by British Steel, the first profits for 11 years. Does my right hon. Friend not agree that that those profits hold out the prospects of a better future for the people who work in those industries than the major losses that were made when the Opposition were in government?

The Prime Minister: Yes. I join my hon. Friend in congratulating both the management and the workforce of British Steel on turning a £1 billion loss into a £38 million profit. It is excellent news. I congratulate, similarly, the management and workforce of the Post Office and Girobank, who have exceeded all the targets that the Government set for them. I will one day visit West Derbyshire.

Mr. Cyril Smith: If the Prime Minister did decide to visit West Derbyshire, does she think that it would increase or reduce the 100 Tory majority?

The Prime Minister: I am only after increasing the Tory majority.

Engagements

Mr. Ashton: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Ashton: As the Prime Minister cannot comment on her relationship with the Palace, can she comment on her relationship with her Back-Benchers? On the front page of yesterday's issue of The Times there was an article under the heading
Rebel Tories accused of Thatcher plot.
What does the Prime Minister intend to do about such treachery? Or is it really a plot by the editor of the Tory The Times Mr. Rupert Murdoch, to drive a wedge between the Palace and Downing street? Is she aware that many of us hope that the Prime Minister will not be forced to resign over a constitutional crisis, because we think that she is one of the best vote-winners the Labour party has got?

The Prime Minister: I propose to continue to answer questions from this Dispatch Box, in the hope that one day the standard of questions from the Opposition may improve.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to welcome the visit of Mr. Peres to Morocco to meet King Hassan, which shows that the middle east peace process may be under way again? Since my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is hoping to meet ANC leaders in South Africa, will my right hon. Friend in due course authorise meetings with Palestinian leaders, including members of the PLO?

The Prime Minister: I hope that the ANC will agree to meet my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on his visit to South Africa. If it does not do so, it will cast doubt on its commitment to try to solve the problem by peaceful means. Like my hon. Friend, I very much welcome the initiative of the Prime Minister of Israel, Mr. Peres, in visiting King Hassan of Morocco, with a view to a new initiative to help to solve the middle east problem. My hon. Friend will be very much aware that, unless the PLO accepts resolutions 242 and 338, I do not believe that it can be involved in negotiations to solve the middle east problem.

Mr. Loyden: In view of the answers given today on unemployment by the Prime Minister's right hon. and learned Friend, does she understand that the majority of people in this country now realise that the Tory Government have failed absolutely to solve the unemployment problem and that the scandal of unemployment is surpassed only by the Government's arrogance in disregarding completely the misery caused to millions of families by the direct actions of this Government?

The Prime Minister: The numbers of people in employment and in self-employment are once again rising, and that is good news. In the last three years 1 million jobs have been created. In the end we will solve the unemployment problem only when companies in manufacturing and services produce the goods and services that people are prepared to buy. The most worrying thing at present is the height of unit labour costs in Britain compared to those in other countries. That could be losing us export orders.

Mr. Gregory: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Gregory: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to praise the British Railways Board and its hard-working staff for turning a massive loss last year into a surplus of over £49 million before taxation? Does she agree that the investment by the Government in electrification was a good investment?

The Prime Minister: I gladly congratulate British Rail on its excellent achievement. It has turned from a £408 million loss in 1984–85 to a small profit in 1985–86, and that is good news. I wish British Rail well and I am glad that we decided to invest in further electrification.

Miss Boothroyd: In view of the evasive answer given to me last week during Question Time by the Prime Minister, will she now take the opportunity to clarify her position? Is she in favour of early majority rule in South Africa, or is she not? The House demands an answer.

The Prime Minister: I am in favour of the process decided and described in the Nassau accord about apartheid. The Eminent Persons Group was sent to South Africa. The accord said — I shall read the whole paragraph—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister is answering the question.

The Prime Minister: The accord said:
We agree on the compelling urgency of dismantling apartheid and erecting the structures of democracy in South Africa. The latter, in particular, demands a process of dialogue involving the true representatives of the majority black population of South Africa. We believe that we must do all we can to assist that process, while recognising that the forms of political settlement in South Africa are for the people of that country—all the people—to determine.
That was the unanimous view of the Commonwealth.

Miss Boothroyd: On a point of order Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Does it arise out of questions?

Miss Boothroyd: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: As long as it is not a supplementary question, I shall allow it.

Miss Boothroyd: It is not a supplementary. I seek your guidance Mr. Speaker. Is it right for the First Minister of the Crown to treat the House in this way?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is an experienced Chairman, and she knows that that is a supplementary question.

Rate Support Grant

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): With permission, I should like to make a statement about local government finance for 1987–88.
The Government believe that for 1987–88, there should be a rate support grant settlement which allows no increases or very low increases in rate bills if authorities budget responsibly, which provides greater certainty for all authorities about their grant entitlements, and which provides tough pressures on authorities that persist in overspending. I want to make it clear that this settlement means that high rate bills, or poor standards of service, or both, will be entirely the fault of the authorities concerned.
Under the present rating system, the link between the governed and the governors is being increasingly weakened. Our proposals for the future will certainly restore that link. Meanwhile, this settlement is designed to secure the greatest possible democratic accountability that the present system can yield.
My proposals are as follows. For local authority current expenditure, I propose to set provision at £25·2 billion. This is a cash increase of £2·9 billion over provision for 1987–88 published in January's public expenditure White Paper and is equivalent to an increase of 3·75 per cent. over local authorities' budgets for 1986–87. This level of provision represents a reasonable assessment of what local authorities will spend, given the level of inflation and their past pattern of spending. It does not follow that I believe that local authorities need to spend at this level. There is widespread scope for carrying out services more efficiently and for cutting out extravagant provision. Therefore, I am reviewing — I want to consult local authorities as usual about—the aggregate of GREs with the aim of keeping them broadly steady in real terms.
I propose to provide authorities with about £12·85 billion in aggregate Exchequer grant. This will maintain the grant percentage at 46·4 per cent. of relevant expenditure, the same as in 1986–87. This is a cash increase from 1986–87 of over £1 billion. This will mean that, if authorities spend in line with the generous provision that we have made, there should on average be no need for rate bills to increase at all. Ratepayers will have the certainty that the blame for high rate increases lies fairly and squarely at the door of their local authority.
These are very substantial increases, which I am sure will be welcome. They make it fair for me to propose a change that will both provide authorities with greater certainty as to their grant entitlement and increase the penalties for the reckless, putting greater pressure on authorities to spend less.
Hitherto, overspending authorities have contributed grant to a pool of money which was then recycled to all authorities on the basis of a common rate poundage. Individual authorities had no certainty as to their grant entitlements, which depended not only on their own expenditure decisions but on those of all other authorities. Of necessity, authorities could be informed of the estimated level of recylced grant only at a late stage, when it was difficult for them to take it into account in setting their rate or precept. More paradoxically, even those authorities that chose to overspend regained some recycled grant.
Therefore, I intend to introduce legislation in the autumn, after consultation, to abolish grant recyclying. As a result, authorities will be able to plan their budgets and rates with much greater assurance. Their grant entitlement will depend solely on their own expenditure decisions. It also means a tougher regime for high spenders. They will continue to lose grant if they overspend, but will not then gain on the roundabouts, by getting recycled grant, part of what they lost on the swings.
I move on to the incorrigible, for whom we have rate limitation. I am today laying before the House a report setting out how authorities will be selected next year. I am selecting authorities not selected in 1986–87 whose budgets are more than 12·5 per cent. above GRE and show growth of more than 4 per cent. since 1985–86. I am reselecting those authorities that were selected in the current year whose budgets are more than 12·5 per cent. above GRE and show growth either of more than 4 per cent. since 1985–86, or more than 20 per cent. since 1982–83.
On these criteria, nine authorities not selected in 1986–87 — Brent, Brighton, Gateshead, Hounslow, Middlesbrough, Newham, North Tyneside, Sheffield and Tower Hamlets — are selected. Eleven authorities are reselected — Basildon, Camden, Greenwich, Hackney, Haringey, Islington, Lambeth, Lewisham, Newcastle, Southwark and Thamesdown. Together with the authorities subject to automatic precept control under the Local Government Act 1985, this will mean that, in all, the Government will next year be limiting the rates or precepts of 40 authorities with expenditure totalling some £4.5 billion.
I am today also setting the expenditure levels for the 20 rate-capped authorities. For reselected authorities, there will be a cash standstill on expenditure levels for 1986–87. All but one of the nine newly selected authorities have budgeted in 1986–87 for a significant increase in spending. Therefore, I am setting their expenditure levels at the lower of their cash budget this year and a 6 per cent. increase over their 1985–86 budget. I am, of course, open to representations for redetermination of expenditure levels. As last year, where an authority applies for redetermination because it considers that special accounting arrangements imply unachievable economies in 1987–88, I will not use my powers to reduce expenditure levels or impose conditions.
My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Home Department, Education and Science, and Transport will be making separate announcements about expenditure levels for ILEA and the joint authorities subject to precept limitation under the Local Government Act 1985.
In the field of capital expenditure, I have to tell the House that, from authorities' own forecasts, we expect the main national cash limit in England to be overspent in 1986–87 by about £700 million.
The Green Paper "Paying for Local Government" set out proposals for a better capital control system, both for the benefit of the national economy and to give local government greater stability. I am urgently considering what steps to take in the light of the responses. I shall make a further announcement later.
I am acting now, however, to end an abuse relating to advance and deferred purchase schemes. These are borrowing schemes masquerading as expenditure. They make use of a bank or other intermediary to transfer expenditure from the year when work is done to an earlier


or later year. On the scale that some authorities have indulged in recently, those devices store up massive problems for their ratepayers in the future.
I shall therefore introduce legislation to ensure that prescribed expenditure is incurred in the proper year regardless of when the authority pays. That will apply to all advance and deferred purchase arrangements, and other arrangements with a similar effect, entered into after midnight tonight. It will apply to England and Wales. Officials are writing to local authorities today with the details.
I am considering an exemption, so that authorities which genuinely need to use the device for its proper purpose for an occasional project are not disadvantaged. Any such exemption would also take effect from a date to be announced.
My proposals for this settlement — decisions on abolition of recycling, rate limitation, advance and deferred purchase — increase the pressure on high spending authorities. On the other hand, authorities which spend sensibly and prudently will have a clear opportunity to keep rate increases low. They will have greater certainty and will not have to gamble their budgets and rates on the unpredictable proceeds of recycling. Where authorities spend up, they will forfeit grant. Where spending exceeds all reasonable limits in flagrant disregard of the interest of ratepayers and local businesses, authorities will be subject to rate limitation.
With a realistic spending provision and a generous grant level that keeps the percentage of grant aid unchanged, I believe that this is a settlement which the whole House should welcome.

Dr. John Cunningham: I begin by congratulating the Secretary of State on a very cleverly worded and presented statement: a statement, however, which is grotesquely misleading. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has improved the presentation while diminishing the substance of what he had to say? Whatever has happened to the criticisms and to the cacophony of calls of overspending and of abuse by local authorities round the country? Do not at least his words demonstrate the needless damage that has been inflicted on local authorities for the past six years?
Is the Secretary of State aware that in his statement it is easy to recognise the all too-obvious deception? He is planning to reduce grant-related expenditure aggregates. Is he not also effectively increasing penalties on all local authorities by making the slope of penalty for spending over GRE steeper and more punitive than ever before?
Is not the Secretary of State also, in his plan to end the recycling of grant, effectively saying to local authorities, "Here is additional money in the settlement, which will be taken away later, almost certainly in at least an equal amount, by the termination of the recycling of grant."? Does not that simply mean a massive windfall for the Treasury, which will be used for other purposes than local authority expenditure?
Does the Secretary of State agree with the Prime Minister's words in the Ryedale by-election when she claimed — as a result of the spending of Labour authorities in the main — that education spending per pupil was at a record level? Is the right hon. Gentleman planning to end that level of expenditure in the settlement? Will his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science agree?
Is it not clear from the studies by the expenditure groups of the Department of the Environment's own officials that any improvement in efficiency that local authorities may be able to achieve will amount to less than 1 per cent. of the total planned expenditure, so there is no way that local authorities can counteract the cuts that have been imposed on them in the past in that way? How can the Secretary of State claim that there will be little or no rates increases, when the Government are planning tomorrow to overturn the defeat in the House of Lords on the Social Security Bill, which will ensure, through legislation, that everyone, regardless of income, will have to pay a minimum of 20 per cent. of their rates bill in future? Does not that mean that thousands of families that do not pay anything at the moment will face major increases in their rates bill as a result of the legislation?
With regard to the end of the recycling of grant, is not the implication of what the Secretary of State has had to say that the Treasury may be taking back up to and perhaps beyond the £1 billion extra that he is saying will be available to local authorities as a result of the settlement? Does not the massive increase in rate capping mean that this Government are spreading even further the central domination and control of local authorities? How is it that, yet again, the right hon. Gentleman has been able to rig the criteria for rate capping to catch more Labour authorities, while avoiding the fact that the City of London is the biggest overspender of GREA of all authorities in the country? Is it not scandalous that he continues to rig the criteria to exclude the City of London, while including impoverished inner-city Labour authorities?
In his promise to legislate to end what is called creative accounting, is not the Secretary of State really enforcing further cuts on many authorities, reducing their freedom and flexibility, and their room for manoeuvre? Is not this statement, like all the others, a naked attack on local authorities, on the quality of the services that they provide, and on their freedom to provide the services that their electorates want? Like all the others, is it not doomed to bring political disaster to this Government, who are already on the road to defeat?

Mr. Ridley: I must check with my office to see whether the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) was sent a copy of the wrong statement. I cannot make any correlation between his remarks and the welcome and important announcement which I have just made.
The local authority associations asked for the provision to be increased by £3 billion and it has been increased by nearly that amount. I simply cannot see how the hon. Member for Copeland can say that, in some way, this is not what local government asked for.
The hon. Gentleman alleged that the GREs had been reduced. As a result of the statement I have just made, the GREs will be increased by 3·75 per cent. or possibly more, subject to consulting the authorities. The hon. Member said that the slopes had been steepened for grant penalties. That is simply not true. I never mentioned anything of the sort, nor is it our intention to do so. So far, the hon. Gentleman has been wrong on three out of three and regret to tell him that he is wrong on the fourth point, regarding grant recycling.
I have never heard a poorer response to a statement — generally welcomed by the House — and a more incompetent piece of analysis than that which came from


the hon. Member for Copeland this afternoon. With regard to grant recycling, we have made realistic provision both for spending and for aggregate Exchequer grant. No authority need incur any penalty or forfeit grant provided that it does not spend more than this year's budget plus the GDP deflator. We have allowed for inflation and we have allowed for the present high level of spending, but if, on top of that, an authority makes a further increase in spending, it surely deserves to forfeit grant. If every authority behaves in the reasonable way that I have suggested, no grant will be forfeited. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that £1 billion of grant would be forfeited is ridiculous. The hon. Gentleman is aware that at this year's level of provision, which was well under the level of spend, only £628 million was forfeited, under totally different conditions.
The hon. Member, in seeking to consider next year's rate support grant, made reference to the Social Security Bill, but I think that that is something which should be discussed tomorrow.
With regard to rate capping, the hon. Member asked why a number of Labour authorities appear in the list. The hon. Gentleman is aware—I read out the criteria—that the criteria are clearly designed on levels of spending and levels of increases in spending. The fact that a number of Labour authorities appear in those lists is surely an indictment, if ever an indictment was needed, of the Labour authorities which go in for profligate waste.

Mr. John Heddle: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the best compliment that the House can pay him is summed up by the lacklustre response of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)? Does my right hon. Friend accept that all prudent councils and all ratepayers of cash-happy councils will welcome his statement this afternoon? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is no coincidence that, of the 20 rate-capped authorities, 19 are Labour-controlled and one, Tower Hamlets, is Liberal-controlled? Does my right hon. Friend further accept that industry and commerce in the inner cities will be grateful for his protection so that they can go about creating jobs and wealth?

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right about the political denomination of the 20 councils I mentioned. However, I must say that that is only a temporary state of affairs and it may not last much longer. The business rate is vital to those of us on this side of the House who are trying to increase employment.
The greatest damage which has been done to employment in large parts of the north of England has been the excessively high business rates which have been levied by local authorities. If this settlement makes a contribution to holding or even reducing the rates in those parts of the country and results in a better climate for business, I shall be proud of its contribution to job creation.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Is the Secretary of State aware that, although the increase of nearly £3 billion is welcome and the fact that the Government have not reduced the grant again below 46·4 per cent. is a consolation to local authorities, they believe that the increase takes account only of inflation during the past few years and will probably not compensate for the

increased wages that they will have to pay the police, teachers and other public officers? Although the change in the recycling rules is welcome because it is better for local authorities to have certainty, it is tinged with danger because there is no prospect of gain for any authority which tries to conform with the Secretary of State's guidance. That is a defect of the abolition of recycling. Does the Secretary of State agree that the change from 20 per cent. to 12·5 per cent. above GREA for rate-capped authorities is tightening the screw and that capital controls are the thing which local authorities resent most? They want to be able to spend their capital as they choose and not have the Secretary of State increasingly dictate that they can spend less and less of it.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman has to accept that local authorities must be responsible for the wages that they negotiate and the pay of their employees. I cannot be expected to accommodate the public spending rule to whatever they choose to pay. I am glad of his welcome for the abolition of grant recycling. There is a chance of gain this year because, with the increased aggregate Exchequer grant, authorities will get more grant, provided that they do not go and forfeit it by engaging in overspending.
The hon. Gentleman is not alone in welcoming the abolition of grant recycling. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who I see in his place, referred to it on 5 March when he said that it was causing great financial uncertainty in Labour and Conservative authorities alike. I should like to introduce him to the hon. Member for Copeland to see whether they can agree about grant recycling.
I am delighted to be able to help the constituents of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) by rate-capping the borough of Southwark. That will protect his constituents from excessive rate demands which would otherwise have been made. I have not yet announced the result of our consideration of the capital controls system for local authorities.

Sir Ian Gilmour: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what appear to be some encouraging and welcome features in his statement. Is he aware that much of the trouble this year, and all of it in my county, was caused not by the local authority but by the Government setting the taper points for the reduction of grant in totally the wrong place? Will he assure the House that nothing so unjust and ridiculous can possibly happen under the system that he has announced this afternoon?

Mr. Ridley: I was delighted to receive my right hon. Friend only last week, when he brought a delegation from Buckinghamshire to discuss these matters with me. I think that he will agree that much of what he said has been incorporated in the statement. I cannot go further into the effects on individual counties until we have completed the consideration and consultations about GREAs, but in the next statement, at the end of the year, I hope to be able to give much closer exemplifications of the effect on every authority.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Is the Secretary of State aware that the British people will not be fooled by a Conservative Secretary of State in a Government who, when county and district councils were Conservative-controlled, cut rate support grant so that rates were forced


up, but who now that nearly every local authority is Labour-controlled or hung, are giving enough RSG to keep rates down? Does he agree that this is a vicious attack on local government? The Secretary of State is giving a so-called extra £1 billion, having taken £17 billion off local authorities during the past seven years, and he will claw most of that £1 billion back and keep it, rather than redistribute it, as happened in previous years. The Government did a calculation last year of how much clawback there would be because of penalties. Has the right hon. Gentleman made that calculation of the money that he will keep this year?

Mr. Ridley: With so many authorities now in the hands of Labour or hung, it is right that the Government should do something to protect the unfortunate ratepayers and victims of those vicious councils. I give notice to the hon. Gentleman and to all councils that after this rate support settlement there will be no excuse for any authority to increase its rates bills by more than a small amount. If such increases occur, they will be the fault of the authorities concerned. The Conservative Government have come to the aid of ratepayers throughout the country, despite the Opposition.

Mr. Robin Squire: I congratulate my right hon. Friend, first on maintaining the percentage of Government support, particularly unless and until we can spread the load much more fairly, and, secondly, on tackling the abuse of the deferred payment scheme. Is it his assessment that more authorities should have greater funding than at present to enable them to improve the fabric of school buildings, housing, and so on?

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The figure of 46·4 per cent. remains and I believe that many authorities will welcome that. I also thank my hon. Friend for his reference to the stopping of abuse of the deferred payment scheme which will save ratepayers immense burdens in the future. It is in the interests of ratepayers that that abuse should be stopped quickly before it gets them into real trouble.
Capital allocations are not the subject of this statement, but I shall be putting forward proposals or making a statement about that aspect at a later stage. The figure, of course, will be covered by the public expenditure White Paper.

Mr. Bernard Conlan: Does the Secretary of State recall that the borough of Gateshead has been more than responsible in its budgeting to meet the terms and conditions laid down by the Government? Is it not perverse that an area more deprived than most in terms of education, housing, health care, social services and employment should be treated so badly? Does he agree that it is disgraceful and scandalous that such a responsible authority should be rate-capped?

Mr. Ridley: Gateshead is spending 14 per cent. above GRE. Its spending has increased by 11 per cent. and the local rate by 27 per cent. since 1985–86. Those high-spending performance figures bring the authority within the criteria for rate capping.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend accept that my two excellent district authorities of Lancaster and Wyre, which have scarcely raised rates at all in the past six years, will greatly welcome a settlement that is fair to those who do best?

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I confirm exactly what she has said.

Ms. Harriet Harman: The Secretary of State has made much of increased spending in rate support grant available to local authorities, but will he confirm three points? First, will he confirm that the extra amount is a mere fraction of the amount taken away in the past six years? Secondly, how much of that amount does the Treasury intend to claw back? Thirdly, will he guarantee that, once the entitlements for individual authorities are announced, they will not be altered retrospectively, as is being considered in the case of Southwark?

Mr. Ridley: I acknowledge that the grant percentage has continued to fall under this Government, a process started by the Labour Government, and that it has fallen from 61 per cent. to 46·4 per cent. That has been a deliberate act of policy by the Government to put more of the burden of local spending on local people.
I cannot confirm that there will be any clawback from the grant. It is a realistic settlement and if authorities spend in line with inflation and not above there will he no forfeit of grant at all. That is quite different from the situation last year when it was clear that the provision was less than the likely spending, so there was a heavy forfeit of grant for recycling.
I did not quite follow the hon. Lady's third question, but I assure her that there will be no change in grant entitlement as the year goes on because of the abandonment of recycling.

Sir Peter Hordern: In view of the extent of Labour protest about the penalties suffered by authorities which have spent far above their GRE, may we conclude that authorities which spent considerably less will he very favourably treated under the new proposals? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that such authorities will be allowed to spend more to reach their GREs? If they cannot do that, what is the point of having GREs at all?

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend will need to study the full details when they are worked out to see the effect on any particular authority, but I confirm that, when an authority makes a budget, it will be able to read off immediately the amount of grant that it will receive for that budget and will be able to maximise its share of the grant by its spending plans. In addition, it should be able to benefit from the increased grant. I believe, therefore, that there is every opportunity for prudent authorities to do better out of this settlement.

Mr. Terry Davis: What about Labour councils such as Birmingham which have always spent less than GRE figures but have lost grant this year because the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor referred to notional rather than to actual figures for last year? Will they lose next year as well?

Mr. Ridley: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to events which were brought to a successful and correct conclusion late last night, but Birmingham., like all authorities, must abide by the rules for rate support grant and share equally.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Whatever my right hon. Friend considers to be the right and proper rules, by which Birmingham should abide like everyone else, does he appreciate that cities such as


Birmingham have very special problems? What hope is there for them in this settlement? Are we to get more money or are the slums to continue? Which is it to be?

Mr. Ridley: It depends entirely on how much money Birmingham budgets to spend. If it budgets for this year's spending plus 3·75 per cent. it will maximise its grant take.

Mr. Ron Leighton: Is the Secretary of State aware that official statistics published by the Department show that the London borough of Newham is the second most deprived borough in the country? Is he aware that the local council is wrestling with massive problems, including a terrible housing problem, exacerbated by the need to remove tower blocks like the notorious Ronan Point? Does he agree that on any objective criteria the Government should be granting partnership status to Newham and helping the area, not rate-capping it? Does he agree that decisions about expenditure should be taken locally and decided by local democracy in elections? Is he aware that in the elections immediately following the setting of a rate in Newham Labour won 60 seats of of 60? Is that why he is being so vindictive to Newham?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman cannot be pleased or proud of the figures for Newham, with spending 18 per cent. above GRE, an increase of 15 per cent. since 1985–86 and a local rate which has gone up 66 per cent. above the class average and is 50 per cent. higher than in 1982–83. Any authority with a record like that would be wiser to keep quiet.

Mr. Charles Morrison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be received with relief and considerable satisfaction by most local authorities, although their ability to achieve low rate increases will clearly depend on the level of wage increases? Will my right hon. Friend continue to bear very much in mind the problems of traditional low-spending authorities which have little or no waste remaining to be cut out but which wish and are required to provide an adequate level of public service?

Mr. Ridley: I believe that authorities of the type that my hon. Friend has described will find that they can accommodate the spending that they need with aid from the Government as a result of this settlement. I commend the settlement to my hon. Friend, because it recognises the very point about past rate support grant settlements that he has been making with such persistence.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does not the Secretary of State accept that, in the past seven years, we have seen a process of centralisation of local government power in the hands of the Secretary of State and that rate increases in most of the inner urban areas, particularly in inner London, have largely been due to cuts in the rate support grant? How are inner London local authorities supposed to maintain very important services such as social services and meet the legitimate aspirations that have been democratically decided upon by their people if they are placed within the confines of a central Government straitjacket, the like of which has never been seen before?

Mr. Ridley: I shall give the hon. Gentleman a straight answer. Islington rent arrears are running at 16 per cent.

As that authority is short of money, why cannot it collect that rent and spend the money on these more important purposes?

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does the Secretary of State accept that there will be considerable satisfaction in counties such as Lincolnshire at this settlement, in that, because there is a realistic assessment of next year's likely budget and there has been no decrease in the Treasury grant, it should be possible to keep rates at their present level? Will he consider one point? In counties such as Lincolnshire, which are spending below their GREs, there is as yet no provision to uplift spending towards their GREs without grant penalties. Will my right hon. Friend consider whether such a facility can be extended to such counties?

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. It will be possible for counties such as his, and many others like it, to be able to maintain their present level of services in real terms by zero or very small increases in rates if they do not go in for an overspending rush. We shall have to look at the details for each county as they come in, but this settlement is designed to enable counties such as Lincolnshire to achieve just that result.

Mr. John Cartwright: When the figures show that rate-capped authorities such as Basildon, Lewisham and Greenwich are budgeting this year, despite the limits, to increase their spending over last year by anything up to 25 per cent., how can the Secretary of State claim that rate capping is protecting the ratepayers of those authorities?

Mr. Ridley: Far be it from me to tell the hon. Gentleman about events in his constituency, but he knows full well that, had it not been for rate capping, Greenwich would have had very much higher rates than it has now. There are various ways in which some authorities have sought to evade the effects of rate capping, which will cumulatively catch up with them in the end.

Mr. J. F. Pawsey: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the £1·25 billion available for teachers' pay is still in place? Will he further confirm that it will be subject to the conditions announced at the time by our right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) when he was Secretary of State for Education and Science?

Mr. Ridley: I can confirm that this settlement does not include any allowance for the increase in teachers' pay which may or may not be approved by the Government depending upon the ACAS process. The £1,250 million was offered to the local authorities in return for improvements in the way in which the teaching forces managed in order to improve educational standards. When the ACAS process is complete, the Government will consider the outcome in full and decide whether the release of all the £1,250 million is justified.

Mr. Bill Michie: When will the Secretary of State accept that the really irresponsible action has been that of the Government? How can the Government blame local authorities when those authorities have been robbed of millions of pounds? For example, Sheffield has lost more than £240 million in grants and has received a measly £20 million, despite the fact that all the problems remain. The Government may take the money away, but while the problems remain, the


caring will continue. I am convinced that, had this Government been in power many years ago, the good Samaritan would have been shot for irresponsibility.

Mr. Ridley: Under this settlement, Sheffield has an opportunity to mend its ways, and I should have thought that it would have been grateful.

Sir John Osborn: Will my right hon. Friend therefore explain why Sheffield was not rate-capped last year? Is he satisfied that the budget it submitted to escape rate-capping was false, because last January we were threatened with 70 per cent. increases? Will he now confirm that the £33 million a year which Sheffield is borrowing from French banks will be stopped forthwith, because ratepayers — whether householders, commerce or industry — will welcome such action in relation to a council that has not run its affairs properly?

Mr. Ridley: Sheffield was not selected last year, because it did not meet the criteria. This year it does meet the criteria. We operate strictly in accordance with the criteria, and I cannot pick or choose within or without those criteria.

Mr. Stuart Bell: How will the right hon. Gentleman's statement help those who are unemployed in Middlesbrough, and how will it help the impoverishment of the town by general Tory economic policies since 1979 by depriving that town of the wherewithal to raise the money to meet its needs? No doubt the Secretary of State will quote a series of figures, but let me quote to him a litany of sad and tragic facts — 28 per cent. unemployment, with 98 per cent. unemployment in certain areas. How will the right hon. Gentleman's statement help the town? Is he merely another of these high-ranking Tories who are full of hypocrisy towards the town and have no generosity of spirit?

Mr. Ridley: I must tell the hon. Gentleman in all sincerity that Middlesbrough has had a local rate that is 89 per cent. above the average for its class, and spending per head has been 119 per cent. above the class average. Figures such as those— I say this seriously— result in crushing burdens on business, which in turn cause unemployment. The hon. Gentleman quoted unemployment. Has he yet realised that there is a very strong link between these profligate rate policies and unemployment, and does he now see how rate capping can even be a contribution towards helping the prosperity of his own town?

Mr. W. Benyon: While I warmly welcome the statement, I return to the point made by my hon. Friends the Members for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) and for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern). Does my right hon. Friend agree that the present formula simply does not take into account those local authorities that have very rapid growth? We are so far behind that we need some means of catching up.

Mr. Ridley: I was pleased to discuss these matters with my hon. Friend when he came to see me. He will take some comfort from the fact that we were able to help him over the problem of the new town of Milton Keynes in his constituency. I do not believe that it would be possible to base GREs on expected increases in population, as he suggested, as it would also be necessary to base them on expected decreases in population, which would be too

difficult to achieve. But we are constantly listening to what he and his hon. Friends say, and I hope he will think that we have gone a long way to helping them in this rate grant settlement.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Today's grants announcement is designed to be equivalent to a projected inflation figure next year that will, in the right hon. Gentleman's words, produce a standstill in the rates. Will not the announcement produce a standstill in the conditions of misery that are experienced in Coventry and other cities throughout the country? Coventry will still have 1,000 council houses unfit for human habitation and 6,000 private and council houses without toilets or hot and cold running water. It will still have 14,000 houses each of which will need repair and modernisation amounting to £4,500. We do not need a statement such as this or even a change of Minister—we need a change of Government who will restore the money to local authorities so that they can bring the housing and other conditions of working people up to the level that they ought to be.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman displays his usual ignorance. The refurbishment of housing is a capital responsibility, not part of the rate support grant. Coventry could well help itself by making sure that its rent fund allowed for the proper repair and maintenance of its houses rather than resulting in large amounts of dereliction because of its own neglect. If the hon. Gentleman really cares about the people of Coventry, he will be looking forward to the election of a Conservative council there.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: While I welcome the abolition of grant recycling, which returned to Leicester more than £200,000 after it was rate-capped and, therefore, did not qualify for it, why has Leicester city not been included in those which should be rate-capped? Two years ago it was rate-capped and since then it has continued to waste ratepayers' money. The council has just made an 80 per cent. rate rise and is showing no regard for ratepayers and the decent people of Leicester.

Mr. Ridley: I must say to my hon. Friend, although I 'know that he is a staunch advocate of ratepayers in Leicester, that Leicester does not come within the criteria which I set out, so it would be wrong to include it.

Mr. Greville Janner: Does the Secretary of State recognise that Leicester city council is struggling to meet great problems of deprivation and that his statement paid practically no regard to the duties of local authorities to care for people in need and to the services which they provide? Does he recognise that the words "democratic accountability", which he used, in the local authority context mean the accountability of councils to those who elect them, and that he and the Government continue to remove that accountability?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. and learned Gentleman must also bear in mind the accountability of councils to those who find the money which they spend. That is something which one never hears from the Opposition Benches. If local authorities spend £25·2 billion in 1987–88, they will be spending more than a quarter of total public expenditure, which is an extremely large sum.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must take into account the subsequent business on the Order Paper today, which is


extremely heavy. I shall allow questions to continue for a further 10 minutes, which will give a full hour for the statement. That is rather longer than usual.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: While I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and the general gist of what he said, does he accept that some Conservative Members are deeply worried about responsible, prudent but expanding authorities which have been penalised under successive rate support grant announcements over recent years? Will he give a categorical assurance that authorities which have obeyed the Government to the letter will in no way be penalised by this settlement? Although it is not a major part of the statement, will he reassure us that the limitations on the spending of capital receipts will be relaxed for responsible authorities which want to use the money to build specialist accommodation, particularly for the elderly?

Mr. Ridley: I have not dealt with capital receipts today. They will have to be the subject of further study before we can make an announcement. On my hon. Friend's first point, I have tried to design the settlement with the sort of views and objectives he has in mind, but it is never possible for a rate support grant settlement to be wholly acceptable to every authority. However, within that constraint this will prove to be a settlement with which authorities can live and provide a decent level of service.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Is not one of the most blatant cases of political bias revealed in rate-capping Brent? When it was Labour-controlled it was rate-capped. Last year there was a Tory authority which left behind a series of repairs to be done on school buildings and a whole log jam of work to be done. The council is now Labour-controlled and has again been rate-capped. Is the Secretary of State aware that each week my ratepayers spend £30,000 on bed-and-breakfast accommodation for 650 homeless families, that 18,000 people are on the waiting list for housing, that our social services have made the news throughout the country, that 52 per cent. of the population fall into ethnic minority groups, and that 80 per cent. of our school leavers are black and in July will go straight on to the dole? We are urban-aided, but is it not nonsense to give urban aid with one hand and to rate-cap with the other?

Mr. Ridley: Is it not nonsense to have 36 per cent. rent arrears in the borough of Brent? Would it not be a useful source of income if the council at least collected its rent and spent the money on the purposes to which the hon. Gentleman rightly draws attention?

Mr. John Powley: My right hon. Friend will be aware that by far the largest proportion of any local authority's budget is that spent on wages and salaries. In that context, does he agree that there is a great responsibility on those who negotiate increases in wages and salaries to ensure that more local authority resources can be spent at the sharp end rather than on wages and salaries? Does my right hon. Friend agree that no local authority should accept a generous settlement merely to employ additional staff when all local authorities should be economising on the number of staff?

Mr. Ridley: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is no excuse to hide behind the fact that local authorities

have chosen to negotiate a number of wages and salaries centrally, because, if they do that, they must take account of the cost of those settlements.

Mr. John Fraser: Having rate-capped a large number of inner city partnerhips and programme authorities, which is bad enough, what is the point of penalising those authorities if they spend within the resources available to them, and of preventing them from spending on capital projects when at the same time the Department, in a statement on urban programmes, is encouraging local authorities to take inner-city partnership schemes into their main stream and to spend on capital? What is the logic of the Government's programme on inner cities?

Mr. Ridley: I must confine the statement to the rate support grant. The hon. Gentleman includes matters which deal with capital control and public expenditure provision of capital. I cannot yet discuss that.

Mr. John Mark Taylor: While I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, will he take into account the fact that both his immediate predecessors told my authority that, in return for a bad settlement, there would be a better one next time, and that that has now happened two years in a row? Can Solihull expect to be lucky the third time?

Mr. Ridley: Not a bit of it. My predecessors' promises have been fulfilled.

Mr. John Evans: Will the Secretary of State concede that the principal reason for the savage rate increases over the past two years is that the Tory Government have removed £17 billion in rate support grant from local authorities, and that it has little to do with so-called profligate local authorities? Does he agree that, if his statement that there should be no rate increases is not to be dismissed as pernicious propaganda, he must acknowledge that that will depend on the circumstances of individual authorities and such factors as the rate of inflation and the level of wage and salary increases, especially for teachers? Is he aware—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Two questions is plenty.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman must look at the spending figures. During the past five years total local authority current spending has grown by 38 per cent. in cash terms, which is 7 per cent. in real terms. It is not merely a question of who is finding the money. There has been massive growth in the total spent, as those figures prove. Before an agreement is reached on teachers' salaries between the Government and other parties, we must see the nature of the agreement with ACAS. The Government have not yet been shown that. I must reiterate the conditions of that, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) has made clear to the House in the past.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, if local authorities such as East Sussex continue to be as prudent as they were last year and in previous years, they will benefit even more next year?

Mr. Ridley: As my hon. Friend knows, I cannot give the details for every county council, but the settlement is designed to provide a good level of grant. Providing that


authorities do not increase their spending above the rate of inflation, they should be able to manage with zero or small rate increases.

Mr. Max Madden: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the help that Bradford will receive from central Government in real terms as a result of the settlement will remain the same? Will he come to Bradford, or receive a delegation from Bradford, so that he can consider urgently the need for additional money to deal with our housing and education crises and inner-city decay?

Mr. Ridley: I cannot comment on the precise effects on individual authorities, as I have said to all hon. Members who have asked me that sort of question. I can say that the settlement will enable authorities to achieve a proper level of services without large rate increases.

Mr. James Couchman: My right hon. Friend's statement will be welcomed especially by careful authorities such as my own. Will he accept that authorities such as Gillingham are worried about the contortions and distortions of the system which allowed two years ago for Gillingham to be in penalty, when it was spending 49 per cent. of its GRE, while this year it has not had to raise a rate at all, due to the munificence of my right hon. Friend's immediate predecessor?

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that the changes that I have announced today will have a considerable effect in simplifying the system and making it easier for authorities, ratepayers and electors to understand what is happening.

Mr. Frank Cook: Will the Secretary of State break the habit of a lifetime by giving the Chamber a straight answer to a straight question and so allow hon. Members fully to appreciate the level of cunning and slyness in his ploy and its presentation this afternoon? Will he give an undertaking that the total GRE will equal the total running expenditure and that there will be no unallocated margin?

Mr. Ridley: I can give the hon. Gentleman a straight answer—no.

Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents who are ratepayers and who live in the Basildon district council area will be pleased by the announcement that Basildon is to be rate-capped for the third successive year? Is he aware also that ratepayers in my constituency and ratepayers everywhere will be indebted to him for the action that he will be taking from midnight tonight on the advance and deferred purchase schemes?

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The spending of his authority is 97 per cent. above GREA and spending per head is 99·9 per cent. above the class average. I am sure that he and his constituents will be grateful for the action that is being taken. The second part of my hon. Friend's question was addressed to deferred purchase. The leader of Islington council, Ms. Hodge, is engaged in one of these schemes to the extent of £38 million. In a newspaper report, she is alleged to have said:
This is a high risk strategy, because not only does it depend on a change in government but it also depends on a commitment by the Labour Front Bench to bail us out when they return to power.

The Leader of the Opposition is in his place and he can give such a commitment. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to give such a commitment this afternon to bail out his friend in Islington. But I doubt whether he will ever be in a position to deliver.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope to be able to call all hon. Members who have been rising in their places to put a question to the Secretary of State for the Environment. When that has been done, we must move on. I ask for one question from each Member and for brief replies.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Secretary of State has said that the London borough of Newham is spending 18 per cent. over its GREA arid will be rate-capped. The City of London spends 190 per cent. over its GREA but it is not being rate-capped. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise how deeply offensive it is to describe the spending programme of Newham as profligate when it is surrounded by massive social and economic problems? Will he emerge from behind the Dispatch Box and his prepared statement and come to Newham to see things for himself?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that only authorities that fall within the criteria can be selected for rate limitation. The authorities which I have read out are the ones that fall within that criteria.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Surely what is grossly misleading is the present system which penalises low-spending authorities by rewarding high-spending Labour authorities? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, with the welcome demise of recycling from low-spending shires to cities, the ratepayers of Lincolnshire, who have a low-spending authority, will never again be faced with high rate increases as long as we have the present Government, committed as they are to this reform, and as long as they re-elect Conservative county councillors?

Mr. Ridley: I think that I can confirm what my hon. Friend seeks, but I cannot commit my successors on the Government Benches as future Secretaries of State for the Environment.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that those outside the House will have understood what the statement is all about? They will understand that it is balanced on a piece of election elastic. That is why he has not been able to answer some of the questions which have been put to him. It seems that the statement has been made because there might be an early 1987 election. Is it not a double standard for the Government—

Mr. Speaker: Briefly.

Mr. Skinner: It is brief.
Is it not a double standard to tell local authorities that they cannot be involved in rescheduling their debts when at the same time, or two or three years ago, the Government told the banks in Britain that they could reschedule debts to Argentina? They told them as well that if they managed to get a default upon the payment of these debts, they would be relieved of the requirement to pay taxation upon the debts. There is one law for the banks in Britain, which have been relieved of the requirement to pay taxation, and another for local authorities that


provide public services to help the people in their areas, who are being hammered by the Government. There is one law for the bankers and another for local authorities.

Mr. Tony Banks: A Government of shysters.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman is in scintillating form this afternoon. The entire House will be impressed by his immense financial expertise.

Mr. Paul Marland: As my right hon. Friend will be aware, due to the financial good sense of the previous Tory administration of Gloucestershire county council it has received a £5 million refund this year. However, it is now a hung council and the £5 million has not been redistributed among the ratepayers. Does my right hon. Friend think it in order for Gloucestershire ratepayers to look forward to a rate reduction next year?

Mr. Ridley: I am glad that my hon. Friend brings in the county which he, I and others represent. I can tell him that this year Gloucestershire county council, under Liberal-Labour control, forfeited £4·3 million of grant and received £4·8 million in grant from the recycling mechanism, which seems to be an odd reward for overspending. The only way to remedy this is for a change of control of the council.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Will the Secretary of State tell the House what his credentials are for understating the extent of the real poverty that now exists in inner-city areas? Will this statement make any real difference to the mean life which the Government have inflicted on my constituents and those of many of my right hon. and hon. Friends?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman says that there is poverty in his constituency. That poverty can be made worse only by having high rates and taking money away from those who are suffering poverty. He has still not grasped the point that there is great benefit in reducing the burdens which authorities such as that in his constituency are placing upon the poorest in society.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: The prospect of low or zero rate rises will be welcomed by employers in Norwich and by ratepayers generally. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that we are moving towards a system that will reward low spenders and to a far simpler system that will be free of the sort of gobbledegook which we have had to tolerate for so long?

Mr. Ridley: I hope that authorities will find that they can manage with zero or low rate increases if they keep their spending roughly in line with inflation. I hope also that my statement will make the system a little easier to understand, though I confess that it is still extremely complex.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the treatment of Norfolk county council in recent years has been harsh and unfair and that it is not its fault that this year has seen large rate increases? Will he accept that his statement will be most welcome, and will he give a categorical assurance to Norfolk ratepayers that he means business when he says that he is determined to improve the lot of prudent shire counties?

Mr. Ridley: I hope that what I have done will have that effect. I cannot, of course, forecast what will happen in future.

Mr. Tony Baldry: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it needs to be said time and time again that if there is a rate increase next year in counties such as Oxfordshire it will be due entirely to the profligate spending policies of the Labour and SDP parties, whose only hobby seems to be a wish to write cheques on other people's bank accounts?

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend has the point exactly right. I can add only that what he has said does not apply solely to counties such as Oxfordshire. It applies to every county and district throughout the land. If there are to be rate increases, the public must know full well that the blame must lie fairly and squarely upon the authority concerned.

Mr. Jack Straw: The Secretary of State told my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) that he was not planning to increase the slope. How, then, does he intend to implement the statement that he has made today, that he will increase the penalty for the reckless? In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), the right hon. Gentleman has now admitted that GREAs may well be set well below the level of aggregate expenditure. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will confirm that, if that is so, he will be putting into the settlement a mechanism by which he could claw back up to the £1 billion that he says that he is giving to the local authorities. How much is the Treasury budgeting to claw back from the local authorities? Is it not the message of the settlement that, after suffering seven years of assault, local authorities should beware of Conservative Ministers bearing gifts? While the rhetoric of the settlement has about it all the stench of the pre-election pork barrel, it will in reality do precious little to meet the social and economic consequences of the Government's actions and the poverty and hardship that they have produced, or to commence rebuilding of Britain that is the task that we shall inherit.

Mr. Ridley: I hope that, if the hon. Gentleman inherits anything, he will do his homework and get it right. He has not got it right. The penalty for reckless authorities is the abolition of grant recycling.

Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman does not understand the system.

Mr. Ridley: I understand the system very much better than the hon. Gentleman. If a local authority loses grant on the present slopes, that grant is forfeited and goes back to the Treasury. However, since the grant and the provision are set at a realistic level, no authority need lose grant, not do we expect any authority to lose grant unless it goes in for a wild bonanza. For that reason, we do not expect any grant recycle to be forfeited. The hon. Gentleman must make up his mind whether what I have announced is a cheat or a pe-election bribe. It cannot be both.

Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I will take points of order later.

Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I will take points of order after the Standing Order No. 10 application. That is the normal procedure.
Later—

Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the statement made by the Secretary of State for the Environment on the rate support grant for England, he constantly referred to the levels of rent arrears in various boroughs. Is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman deliberately to mislead the House about rent arrears when they are the responsibility of the Department of Health and Social Security?

Mr. Speaker: No hon. Member, whether from the Front Bench or the Back Benches, deliberately misleads the House. The hon. Gentleman seems to be seeking to raise a point for debate. As I understand it, there will have to be an order on this matter, and so there will be a debate. I shall bear the hon. Gentleman's claims in mind when we come to that point.

NEW MEMBER

The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:

Mrs. Llinos Golding, for Newcastle-under-Lyme.

Nigel Duncan Williams

Mr. Gerrard Neale: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No.10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the proposed release from prison on parole of Nigel Duncan Williams.
I believe that we should consider the basis upon which violent criminals are released from prison on remitted sentences and especially on parole. In particular, I ask that we be allowed to debate the interests of the victims families, who are affected by released prisoners returning to the local area.
In April, four years ago, Nigel Duncan Williams of Whitestone crescent, Bodmin, stood charged, with murder. He was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 12 years in prison. He had lain in wait for and had brutally assaulted, Caroline Cooper of my constituency, who died from her injuries. He then dragged her into the churchyard. Four years ago this month, on appeal, his sentence was reduced to eight years. Next Tuesday Nigel Williams is to be released on parole, to return to Bodmin and live round the corner from the victim's family, close to the very place where the crime took place.
This state of affairs is horrific for the locality and in particular for the Cooper family, who have another daughter now aged 15.
The issue is not restricted to one family and one convicted criminal. In the statement made by the Home Secretary in 1983 about the conditions upon which parole was to be given to violent criminals, and in the subsequent report ordered to be published by this House on 3 June this year, many points are made about the close consideration to be given to the parole of violent prisoners. However, there is no reference in either the statement or the report to the interests of the victim's families.
I ask that urgent consideration be given to this issue by the House. In the case to which I have referred, some four years and two months after his conviction, a violent criminal is to return to the very locality of his crime and the neighbourhood of the affected family.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the proposed release from prison on parole of Nigel Duncan Williams.
I have listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10, and I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.
I will now take the points of order.

Wages Bill

Mr. Dave Nellist: I wish to raise a point of order on a matter of which I have given prior notice.
Together with several of my Labour comrades I sat for many weeks on Standing Committee K, considering the Wages Bill, which is to come before the House tomorrow, after the Social Security Bill and the Social Security Regulations, and after the clotted cream and strawberries have been served at a wedding that I understand is to take place.
There are strict conventions governing what we are allowed to discuss tomorrow night. For instance, we are only allowed to discuss the amendments made to the Bill in the House of Lords. I should have liked to be able to table amendments to those Lords amendments and to put them before the House tomorrow evening. However, the Lords are not debating the Third Reading of the Wages Bill until tonight. The Vote Office can provide no information about what has been discussed so far or what changes might be made tonight on Third Reading.
I should like to quote from the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure of 1984–85:
If Parliament is adequately to scrutinise legislation and to have time to improve it, we believe it is essential that (emergencies excepted) reasonable periods are allowed for reflection and for consultation. We propose that the following intervals be laid down in Standing Orders as the minimum between various stages of a Bill:

(a) two weekends between first and second reading;
(b) ten days between second reading and the start of committee stage; and
(c) ten days between report from committee and the start of Report stage."

We shall have barely 10 hours after the Lords finish with the Bill before it returns to the Commons. I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to protect the 3 million workers who are to lose either holidays or legal minimum wages under the Bill, and to protect the rights of hon. Members adequately to analyse legislation and to consult those affected before we speak in the Chamber. May we either have advice on how to delay consideration of the Bill or have the recess delayed for at least two weeks so that we can do the job that our electors sent us here to do?

Mr. Ian Mikardo: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As one who sat through the Standing Committee which considered the Wages Bill, may I put it to you and the House that this is an involved, complicated and technically difficult Bill which is not easy to understand? Indeed, for most of the time, the Minister in charge of the Committee found great difficulty in understanding the Bill. When he was forced to depart from the bits of paper that his advisers gave him, he flopped around because he did not understand it.
I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that we shall not have the Lords amendments until tomorrow morning and that that is grossly unfair. There are many interests involved. The Low Pay Unit, a public institution, is very much involved. It has taken a great interest in the Bill. It will be impossible to consult it in the few hours that are available. Many trade unions are involved, as is the Equal Opportunities Commission. This is an abuse of the procedures of the House and I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will be kind enough, as you always are, to give some thought to the matter.

Mr. Don Dixon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you also bear in mind, when considering the point of order, the shabby way in which the Government have treated hon. Members during the passage of the Bill? On numerous occasions in Committee I and other hon. Members protested because Hansard was not available to enable members of the Committee to consider the Minister's speeches. It was pointed out that because there were 10 Standing Committees at that time the printers could not print Hansard in time. The Hansard staff were not at fault.
In addition, the Government amended part III during the passage of the Bill which brought forward the redundancy payment scheme. The reason given was that the Government intended to take another £50 million out of the redundancy fund—a fund incidentally, which is contributed to by employers and employers in Britain. Nevertheless, the Government wanted to steal an extra £50 million. That is the way that the Government have treated the Bill during its passage through the House.
I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will bear in mind what my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East, (Mr. Nellist) said about amendments not being available for hon. Members to consider until tomorrow because the other place is having the Third Reading debate today, during which amendments can be tabled.

Mr. Alan Williams: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you will appreciate that my hon. Friends have a real and serious point. We shall have amendments which, as yet, we can only speculate on, and which will be of profound importance to many of our constituents. Yet not only shall we not see them, but, unless you are willing to help in some way, there seems at the moment to be no way in which we shall be able to amend the amendments in time. Therefore, we would appreciate your guidance on that. However, I emphasise that, whatever arrangement you make, for which we shall be grateful, we still regard them as a poor substitute for the proper consideration that the legislation should have had.

Mr. Speaker: I understand the difficulty in which the House finds itself, and I thank the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) for having given notice of the point of order. He and the House will know that I am not responsible for the organisation of business; that is a matter which would be best discussed through the usual channels.
The timing of the business and the fact that the House is due to go into recess this weekend is in the hands of the House. I fully recognise the difficulties in which hon. Members have been placed in this matter and I shall bear that in mind when I make my selection.

Mr. Nellist: Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I am not sure that I can help the hon. Gentleman any more.

Mr. Nellist: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for having helped in the way that you have done so far. However, did I correctly understand the latter part of your remarks to mean that if amendments were tabled tomorrow as a result of tonight's Third Reading in the other place, the normal convention of a couple of days' notice would be set aside so that Labour Members could table amendments? Secondly, through you, Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the


House is listening, may I appeal to the Leader of the House to say whether he has anything to say about the position in which we will find ourselves tomorrow?

Mr. Speaker: I shall consider starred amendments, and I might, if time is short, have to consider manuscript amendments. We do not know what will happen, but I shall consider the matter carefully.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I am sure that the House will appreciate your concern, Mr. Speaker, to help us in the way in which amendments are selected. The arrangements for dealing with the Bill are, of course, far less than ideal, but they are by no means unprecedented. If the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) would like to do just a little homework, he will find that taking the Commons consideration of Lords' amendments the day after the Bill leaves the other place is by no means unprecedented. For example, the Social Security (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, completed its passage in the other place on Wednesday 23 March 1977 — a significant date—and was considered by the Commons on Thursday 24 March.

South Africa (Sanctions)

Mr. Richard Caborn: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the application of the Nassau Accord in relation to sanctions against South Africa.
The accord was agreed in October 1985 and it had three main areas of action. First, there was the immediate application of limited sanctions—in fact, to coin the Prime Minister's words when she reported to the House, teeny-weeny sanctions.
The second area of action was that an Eminent Persons Group of seven should be set up whose terms of reference were clearly laid down in the accord. They were charged with the responsibility of bringing back to the Commonwealth Heads of State conference a full report within six months. The timetable was subsequently altered to about nine months.
I am sure that all hon. Members are au fait with the contents of the Eminent Persons Group's report. I want to quote the penultimate paragraph of the conclusions of that report, which gives the House an overwhelming reason for supporting the Bill. It says:
The question in front of Heads of Government is in our view clear. It is not whether such measures will compel change; it is already the case that their absence and Pretoria's belief that they need not be feared, defers change. Is the Commonwealth to stand by and allow the cycle of violence to spiral? Or will it take concerted action of an effective kind? Such action may offer the last opportunity to avert what could be the worse bloodbath since the Second World War.
Thirdly, the accord outlined a further eight points which should be taken into account if adequate progress had not been made in nine months. Those eight points should be spelt out because that, no more and no less, is what I am asking the House to endorse this afternoon and to put into formal legislation. They are: a ban on air links with South Africa; a ban on new investment or reinvestment of profits earned in South Africa; a ban on the import of agricultural products from South Africa; the termination of double taxation agreements with South Africa; the termination of all Government assistance to investment in and trade with, South Africa; a ban on all Government procurement in South Africa; a ban on Government contracts with majority-owned South African companies, and, last but by no means least, a ban on the promotion of tourism to South Africa.
Those were the eight points that were set out in the Nassau accord. Many of us believe that they are minimal and want full mandatory economic sanctions to be applied to South Africa, and I believe that the House must make a decision this afternoon in the light of the developing situation in South Africa.
As we all know, the situation in South Africa is deteriorating daily. Calls for the application of sanctions as a means of ensuring that the Pretoria regime gets round the negotiating table with the true leaders of the people of South Africa are almost universal. The South African Council of Churches, the trade union movement, Bishop Tutu, Nelson Mandela, and, as we reported last week in the South Africa debate, some business men, are now calling for sanctions to be applied. Outside South Africa, many nations are asking for action to be taken. The Synod of the Church of England, Archbishop Runcie, and the United States Congress have called for sanctions against South Africa, and during the past two or three days two


white members of the Commonwealth, including the Canadian all-party committee on human rights, have asked for broad economic sanctions to be applied from 30 September 1986. If agreement is not arrived at by the Commonwealth heads of Government, there are calls for Canada to go it alone.
The Australian Prime Minister, in a special appeal to the British Prime Minister, said:
I can only express the hope that the developing attitudes around the world will impress themselves upon those who have to make the decisions in London when we meet there in a very short time … and I hope these events are becoming clear to the British Prime Minister.
The most significant movement over the past few days has come from British industry. It was reported in the press on Sunday, and was followed up yesterday, that the British Industry Committee on South Africa, which includes 50 of the largest British companies operating in South Africa, has changed its position and is now calling for limited sanctions. Why has it done this?
Its change of position has been caused by the slogan that is going the rounds in Africa and elsewere, "Buy British Last". That has caused the change in attitude in British business.
The options before the House are now clear. Do we support the vast majority of the Commonwealth, the overwhelming majority of the South African people, all the front-line states, the Church inside and outside South Africa, and, latterly, many parts of the business community? Or do we reject this near universal concensus in slavish adherence to the British Prime Minister, whose credibility sinks daily at home and abroad in that she says that sanctions will hurt the blacks?
For 100 years the blacks in South Africa have been struggling to be free. Over the past 50 years, since the Nationalist Government was formed, apartheid has been written into the constitution. In rural areas, the blacks have one of the highest infant mortality rates, at 500 per 1,000, of any country with a comparable GDP. South Africa is one of the worst countries in the world in that respect. Spending on education is balanced to one in favour of the whites. There is one doctor for every 300 whites, but only one doctor for every 12,000 blacks.
The blacks in South Africa have been suffering for years and they are calling for help. The Government have not heeded that call. The Prime Minister turned her back on the Brandt report, and her conduct towards the Third world in aid has been nothing less than deplorable. It is unacceptable for the Prime Minister to lecture us about the suffering of the South African people and claim that sanctions will cost Britain jobs.
The Prime Minister's claims have a hollow ring, both inside and outside the House, as there are 4 million people unemployed in this country and there are even some doubts about how the unemployment figures are calculated. The Tory Benches must take note of the major companies in the United Kingdom, which, in response to the slogan "Buy British Last" have said that not imposing sanctions could be extremely costly for the United Kingdom, if not in the short term, certainly in the long term—[Interruption.] I am trying to make myself heard.
The House has a special responsibility in the matter. In 1909 it passed the constitution Act for the Union of South Africa. This is possibly the only constitution based on racism, as racism is inherent in the Act. There was some

opposition to the Act, but we have a responsibility now not to drag our heels on this issue. We must take the lead, bearing in mind that that constitution derived from this House of Commons and that the racist regime of apartheid was built into that constitution.
An interesting letter appeared in The Times on 27 July 1909. It said:
We of European birth or descent are, by virtue of our civilisation, undoubtedly dominant; we shall, if we deserve it, remain dominant, but only in so far as we recognise and perform the duties which our privileged position entails. Our dominance must be dominance of merit in a free country, where career is open to talent and to civilised men,"—
this may refer to Conservative Members—
with no discrimination upon such unsound, unstable grounds of race or colour.
The point of that letter to The Times, written nearly 100 years ago, is relevant to the House in 1986. Discussions are necessary. Will this House, in 1986, have integrity, humanity and compassion and act in concert with the Commonwealth and approve my Bill this afternoon? The Bill will signal to South Africa and to the Commonwealth that we mean business and that we will attack the apartheid regime.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: In this House we know how frequently private Members' Bills are used as publicity stunts. Because we understand that, we do not normally wish to waste too much time on them. Indeed, we often let them pass on the nod. This practice is not so generally understood outside the House.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) is a member of the national executive committee of the Anti-Apartheid Movement. His arguments are familiar to us and I do not need to spend time on them now. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) was heard in relative silence. We have freedom of speech in this place.

Mr. Onslow: The hon. Gentleman cannot persuade me that if his Bill is allowed an unopposed passage today it will not be trumpeted around the world by the Anti-Apartheid Movement as a major setback for the Government and their policies. It becomes all the more obvious that that would be so when we remember, as the hon. Gentleman did not remind us, that the Foreign Secretary sets off today on the second stage of his South African mission.
We all know the case against apartheid, and we are united in this House and elsewhere in the country in our opposition to that abhorrent system. At the same time, we should also be united in wishing the Foreign Secretary success in achieving the objectives that he has set. If his mission is ultimately unsuccessful—as I hope it will not be—we know that then will be the time to consider with our partners in the European Community and in the Commonwealth, and with our friends in the West, what measures should be taken.
The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have made that clear time and again. In the meantime, it does no one any good to join the Leader of the Opposition— who is such a great boy for the bombastic cliché—in talking about
using sanctions to bring Botha to heel.


Whatever the armchair guerrillas may say, the imposition of sanctions is not an end in itself. Our end and our aim must be a peaceful settlement in South Africa, not the promotion of violence and death.
The House today should give its full support, therefore, to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary in his very difficult task. We must not weaken his hand by suggesting that we believe that he can intimidate or blackmail Pretoria into submission. We should reject this thoroughly mischievous and unhelpful measure.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and Nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):-

The House divided: Ayes 196, Noes 243.

Division No. 273]
[5.10 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Eadie, Alex


Anderson, Donald
Eastham, Ken


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)


Ashdown, Paddy
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Ewing, Harry


Ashton, Joe
Fatchett, Derek


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Faulds, Andrew


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Barnett, Guy
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Barron, Kevin
Fisher, Mark


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Flannery, Martin


Beith, A. J.
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bell, Stuart
Forrester, John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Foster, Derek


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Foulkes, George


Bidwell, Sydney
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Blair, Anthony
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Freud, Clement


Boyes, Roland
Garrett, W. E.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
George, Bruce


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Godman, Dr Norman


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Gould, Bryan


Buchan, Norman
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Caborn, Richard
Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Hardy, Peter


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Cartwright, John
Heffer, Eric S.


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Clarke, Thomas
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Clay, Robert
Home Robertson, John


Clelland, David Gordon
Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cohen, Harry
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Janner, Hon Greville


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
John, Brynmor


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Craigen, J. M.
Kennedy, Charles


Crowther, Stan
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kirkwood, Archy


Cunningham, Dr John
Lambie, David


Dalyell, Tam
Lamond, James


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Leadbitter, Ted


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Leighton, Ronald


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Deakins, Eric
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dewar, Donald
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dixon, Donald
Loyden, Edward


Dobson, Frank
McCartney, Hugh


Dormand, Jack
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Douglas, Dick
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Dubs, Alfred
McKelvey, William


Duffy, A. E. P.
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
McTaggart, Robert





McWilliam, John
Rooker, J. W.


Madden, Max
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Mallon, Seamus
Rowlands, Ted


Marek, Dr John
Ryman, John


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sedgemore, Brian


Martin, Michael
Sheerman, Barry


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


Maynard, Miss Joan
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Meacher, Michael
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Meadowcroft, Michael
Short, Mrs H.(W'hampt'n NE)


Michie, William
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Mikardo, Ian
Skinner, Dennis


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Snape, Peter


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Soley, Clive


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Spearing, Nigel


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Nellist, David
Stott, Roger


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Strang, Gavin


O'Brien, William
Straw, Jack


O'Neill, Martin
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Park, George
Torney, Tom


Parry, Robert
Wainwright, R.


Patchett, Terry
Wallace, James


Pavitt, Laurie
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Pike, Peter
Wareing, Robert


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Weetch, Ken


Radice, Giles
Welsh, Michael


Randall, Stuart
Wigley, Dafydd


Raynsford, Nick
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Redmond, Martin
Wilson, Gordon


Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Winnick, David


Richardson, Ms Jo
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)



Robertson, George
Tellers for the Ayes:


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn and


Rogers, Allan
Mr. Tony Banks.


NOES


Ancram, Michael
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Aspinwall, Jack
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Clegg, Sir Walter


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Coombs, Simon


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Cope, John


Batiste, Spencer
Corrie, John


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Couchman, James


Bendall, Vivian
Cranborne, Viscount


Benyon, William
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bevan, David Gilroy
Dickens, Geoffrey


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dicks, Terry


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Dorrell, Stephen


Blackburn, John
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Dover, Den


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Bottomley, Peter
Dunn, Robert


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Durant, Tony


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Evennett, David


Bright, Graham
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Brinton, Tim
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Farr, Sir John


Browne, John
Favell, Anthony


Bruinvels, Peter
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fletcher, Alexander


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Fookes, Miss Janet


Buck, Sir Antony
Forman, Nigel


Budgen, Nick
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Burt, Alistair
Forth, Eric


Butcher, John
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam
Fox, Sir Marcus


Butterfill, John
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Freeman, Roger


Cash, William
Fry, Peter


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Gale, Roger


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Chope, Christopher
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Churchill, W. S.
Garel-Jones, Tristan






Glyn, Dr Alan
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Gorst, John
Key, Robert


Gower, Sir Raymond
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Grant, Sir Anthony
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Greenway, Harry
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Lang, Ian


Grist, Ian
Latham, Michael


Ground, Patrick
Lawler, Geoffrey


Grylls, Michael
Lawrence, Ivan


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Hannam, John
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Lester, Jim


Harris, David
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Haselhurst, Alan
Lightbown, David


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Lilley, Peter


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Hawksley, Warren
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Hayes, J.
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Maclean, David John


Hayward, Robert
McLoughlin, Patrick


Heddle, John
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Henderson, Barry
McQuarrie, Albert


Hickmet, Richard
Major, John


Hill, James
Malone, Gerald


Hirst, Michael
Marland, Paul


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Marlow, Antony


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Holt, Richard
Mates, Michael


Hordern, Sir Peter
Mather, Carol


Howard, Michael
Maude, Hon Francis


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Hunter, Andrew
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Monro, Sir Hector


Irving, Charles
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Jackson, Robert
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Mudd, David


Jessel, Toby
Murphy, Christopher


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Neale, Gerrard


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Neubert, Michael


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Onslow, Cranley





Oppenheim, Phillip
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Osborn, Sir John
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Stokes, John


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Pattie, Geoffrey
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Pawsey, James
Terlezki, Stefan


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Pollock, Alexander
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Porter, Barry
Thornton, Malcolm


Portillo, Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Powell, Rt Hon J. E.
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Powell, William (Corby)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Powley, John
Trippier, David


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Trotter, Neville


Price, Sir David
Twinn, Dr Ian


Proctor, K. Harvey
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Raffan, Keith
Viggers, Peter


Rhodes James, Robert
Waddington, David


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Walden, George


Roe, Mrs Marion
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Rowe, Andrew
Wall, Sir Patrick


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Walters, Dennis


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Ward, John


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Watts, John


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Whitfield, John


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wiggin, Jerry


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wilkinson, John


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Winterton, Nicholas


Shersby, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Silvester, Fred
Woodcock, Michael


Sims, Roger
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Younger, Rt Hon George


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)



Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Tellers for the Noes:


Speed, Keith
Mr. Gwilym Jones and


Spencer, Derek
Mr. Gerald Bowden.


Stanbrook, Ivor

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — Education Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Before the House begins consideration of the Bill I should draw attention to a printer's error affecting amendments Nos. 117 and 118. These amendments are printed today in the correct order, having been transposed yesterday. However, names intended for the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels), amendment No. 118, have been added to the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), amendment No. 117. This error is regretted, but Mr. Speaker was aware of it when he made the provisional selection of amendments.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: On a point of order that relates to the very heavy business for tonight, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have all seen Mr. Speaker's provisional selection of amendments. You will appreciate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that some of them relate to very important matters. There is a substantive debate on amendment No. 153 about corporal punishment, and there will be substantive debates on special schools, transport to schools in rural areas and the closure of schools procedure.
Many hon. Members and especially those from rural areas will wish to speak on all those matters. It is highly unsatisfactory that the debate on such important matters should be held very late tonight. I should like to raise with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and through you with my right hon. and hon. Friends the possibility of not requiring the House to consider such matters late tonight.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has my sympathy but it is not a matter for me.

Mr. J. F. Pawsey: Further to that point of order, this is a most important and complicated Bill. Could my hon. Friend the Minister give an undertaking that additional time will be found to discuss the Bill at a later date?

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Chris Patten): I am always anxious to be helpful on Tuesdays. We had a good and constructive Committee stage on the Bill, and in the light of that we would like to make as much progress tonight as possible. However, one has to look at these things philosophically and if we cannot complete matters tonight I hope that we shall be able to do so when the House comes back in October. We shall have plenty of time then to accomplish that. We shall make such progress as we can during the course of the evening.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: The Minister has clearly said that if we do not make progress tonight it would not be beyond the bounds of possibility for the House to discuss these matters after the summer recess. Since that is the case why do we have to go on so late this evening?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I have said, that is not a matter for me.

Mr. Richard Holt: I should like to correct something in Hansard because it appears that I inadvertently misled the House by talking about the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) instead of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay). I was discussing Mr. Speaker's ruling on sartorial elegance and I should never wish to confuse those two hon. Gentlemen. May I have the record corrected and may I apologise to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that that will be noted.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If we do not finish the business tonight and if after the recess the Government decide that there shall be further debate on this important Bill, will it be in order for the Government at that stage to bring forward further amendments?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We shall deal with that when we come to it.

Mr. Clement Freud: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before the Minister speaks to new clauses 18 and 12 may I seek your advice? New clause 18 is an admirable one and gives us almost exactly half of that for which we asked. There is no way that we can vote against clause 18, but we should like to move new clause 12 separately. In a substantial number of new clauses and amendments the Government have gone some way towards meeting the Opposition, and it will be impossible to oppose those amendments. May I have your ruling on whether we might move new clause 12 separately and have a separate vote on it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We shall consider that when we reach the appropriate stage.
Ordered,
That the Education Bill [Lords], as amended, be considered in the following order, namely, new Clauses Nos. 18 and 19, Amendments relating to Clauses Nos. 44 and 45, other new Clauses, Amendments and Motions relating to Clauses Nos. 1 to 43 and 46 to 61, new Schedules and Amendments to Schedules.—[Mr. Chris Patten.]

New Clause 18

ACCESS TO PAPERS ETC. OF GOVERNING BODIES

`(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring the governing body—

(a) of every county, voluntary and maintained special school; and
(b) of every institution of a kind mentioned in section 56 of this Act;

to make available, to such persons or classes of person as y be prescribed, such documents and information relating to the meetings and proceedings of the governing body as may be prescribed.
(2) Documents and information required by the regulations to be made available shall be made available in such form and manner, and at such times, as may be prescribed.'.—[Mr. Chris Patten.]

Brought up, and read the first time.

Mr. Chris Patten: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient also to consider new clause 12.

Mr. Patten: In bringing forward this new clause, the Government are fulfilling an undertaking made at


Committee stage, especially to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Norris). We were spectacularly open-minded and generous in Committee, and this is one of several examples of the generosity of spirit that we showed during the happy weeks of June and July. The purpose of the new clause is to enable regulations to be made to provide for public access to the documents of school and college governing bodies.
It may be helpful for me to say a little about the content of the regulations on which, of course, we shall consult widely in draft. I stress that because it is important. We intend to specify that the agendas, papers and minutes of governing bodies should be available for inspection at the school or college concerned, and at all the schools grouped under a single governing body. We intend to provide in the regulations that references to disciplinary matters concerning named individuals, whether pupils or staff, and to discussion of named individuals as potential members of staff should remain confidential. In the consultation process, we shall ask particularly for guidance on the precise form that such a provision should take.
In framing the regulations we shall also bear in mind the point made in Committee by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) that signed minutes would not be available until the meeting after that of which they are a record and we shall consider whether draft minutes should not therefore be made available. I should mention in passing that amendment No. 55 will delete the provision in paragraph (c) of clause 8(6) since this is overtaken by the new clause. I am sure that the House will welcome this further evidence of the Government's support for public access to papers.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: We welcome this small concession from the Government, although it is sad that they did not manage to come up with rather more, which would have made the Bill rather better. If the new governing bodies are to be affected by the Bill, it is important that there is as open an access to as many documents as possible. I hope that on many occasions, the governors will meet in public, so that they can encourage a wide debate on matters such as the curriculum, discipline in schools and resources. We all recognise that there is a problem, in giving access to documents, with certain issues with which governors deal, such as the appointment of staff, or the suspension of staff or pupils.
We still think that there would have been distinct advantages in going through the procedure, originally suggested by the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Norris), and set out in the new clause tabled by the Liberal party. Simply adding this provision to the Local Government (Access to Information) Act would have made it more clear and precise to those who want to press for access to all the documents. The Act makes provisions for keeping confidential matters that relate to individuals, and it would be far easier if there were a clear statement of all the information that people have the right to seek. I suspect that it will only add to the confusion if access to information about governing body meetings is set out by regulations.
I appreciate that the Government want to consult carefully about the regulations but enshrining the right to information in primary legislation has major advantages.

I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will allow us to vote on new clause 12, which would go the whole hog and put the right into primary legislation rather than having the Government's compromise of doing it by regulation.

Mr. Freud: New clause 12 was originally drafted by the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Norris) and moved by him in Committee. He has a good record on open government and access to information matters. Essentially, the clause extends the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 to meetings of school and college governing bodies. There is a clear prima facie case for making that move.
The Bill is about democratising school governing bodies and involving more people in their affairs, and about extending their boundaries to give citizens a real part in governing their schools. It is not only right but necessary to open up the school meetings, given the new and enhanced responsibilities that the governing bodies will have.
Above all, I believe that the ideas embodied in the Bill, about involving parents and the community and making education more accountable, should not stop with the increase in the number of parents on the governing bodies. It is not good enough simply to legislate for such an increase. We should be concerned with ensuring the fullest possible opportunities for involving all the parents and the community as much of the time as is possible.
The real impact of parental involvement, which can be very profound, on educational standards, will come not from the formal election of a few parents but from the openness and accessibility of the work of the school and the governing body. The hon. Member for Oxford, East gave eloquent testimony to the actual working of open government in governing bodies when he spoke in Committee of schools where this was the normal and accepted practice. He argued, and I share his opinion, that decisions were better made in the open, and that the quality of the decision-making process was enhanced.
In Committee, the Under-Secretary argued that the Government would look into this matter with care when the time came to draft the regulations. However, what has been drafted is inadequate. What is so different about school governing bodies from local government that the former is to be dealt with by regulations rather than by legislation? Do the Government not recognise the immense symbolic importance of having such a clause in the Bill? The access to records and minutes already permitted by the regulations does not compare to a statutory right to attend the meetings.
New clause 18 is clearly inadequate and much less of a reform than would be acceptance of new clause 12. I ask the Government to think again about this. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to let the House have a separate vote on new clause 12 so that genuine access to information can be available to the people by right, and not as a special benefit. As the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said, we already have guarantees of confidentiality. We should like freedom of access to governing bodies meetings enshrined in legislation.

Mr. Steve Norris: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) for his support in Committee and for his kind words today. His support for freedom of information goes back a long way before I became a Member of Parliament.


I am pleased that the Government have moved new clause 18, on the basis that half a loaf is better than none and that we have made considerable progress since the Bill was first drafted. I would have preferred it if my hon. Friend the Minister had been able to take on board rather more whole-heartedly the provisions of section 100J of the Local Government (Access to Information) Act. I appreciate that there are some technical difficulties in moving to that stage straight away. However, I am grateful that we have been able to make substantial progress before the Bill left the House of Commons.
The hon. Member for Cambridge, North-East spoke about what we were being offered, and by implication what we were not being offered. We are being given reasonable provisions for documents and information relating to the meetings and proceedings of governing bodies. That is welcome, particularly as we shall not have to go through the charade of being able to see the minutes of governing body meetings only after they have been approved by the governors. That meant waiting until the next governors' meeting had approved and signed them, by which time they were meaningless. This point was taken well by my hon. Friend the Minister in Committee, and it is good to see that the words "and at such times" in new clause 18(2) are intended to cover that eventuality.
However, we are left with the absence from the new clause of any provision allowing members of the public to attend governors' meetings as a matter of right. There is an irony there. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary wrote to me and to other members of the Committee after the sitting in which my proposed new clause had been debated, and made it clear that the Government were not unsympathetic to the general idea of access to information and the extension of that to education. He went on to make a somewhat curious argument about how governors' meetings were not meetings in the sense of councillors' meetings or meetings of health authority members, but merely meetings of groups of people who were part of the administrative process of the education system—rightly, as a number of my hon. Friends have said. However, my hon. Friend went on to say that governors' meetings had a status that meant that they would be injured or devalued if the public were permitted access.
I stress that when I talk about public access, I accept, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, that when dealing with named individuals, whether members of staff or pupils, many of the conditions that apply now in local authority agenda where part II requirements are frequently invoked, should be made available for meetings of school governors. No one disputes that, least of all me or the other hon. Members on both sides of the House who have supported the campaign.
More importantly, the argument that there is something qualitatively different about a governors' meeting as distinct from the meeting of a health authority, and that the former should be treated differently for public access purposes, is most unconvincing. Members of health authorities are appointed from many different bodies. They serve various sectional interests and their job is far more technical than that of school governors. All hon. Members will agree that members of health authorities deal with a specific allocated budget, and so they are in many ways immune to political arguments. Their job is to dispose only of the health resources allocated to them.
It has always been accepted that the meetings of health authorities should be public, but the issues dealt with by school governors' meetings are just as relevant to the public.

Mr. Freud: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the issues dealt with by health authorities are not as confidential?

Mr. Norris: That is entirely right. However, the proceedings of a health authority and of a school's governing body are both likely to be extremely important to the local community. We are discussing whether we should extend to governors' meetings the old received wisdom that the meetings of a local council or of a local health authority can be attended by the public. Much attention has been paid to the idea of allowing public access to the meetings of water boards. For some reason it is suggested that school governing bodies should be exempt from this process. However, the distinction is neither logical nor, more importantly, justifiable. A more important principle is involved.

Mr. Chris Patten: Just to inform me more clearly on this matter, will my hon. Friend tell me whether the meetings of management units are held in public?

Mr. Norris: If we start talking about angels dancing on pinheads we could, no doubt, think of many groups of public sector servants who do not meet in public. But there is a qualitative difference. The unit management group of a hospital is generally composed of the unit administrator, the treasurer, the medical officer designated to be a member of the unit medical group and possibly the nursing officer. They deal, literally, with nothing but administration. They are neither required to make, nor do they make, policy decisions other than those which have been directly delegated to them by the health authority, which meets in public.
Frankly, I am disappointed with my hon. Friend the Minister. If he was trying to think of an example to upset my logical progression he has picked a bad one. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) argued long and hard about access to information in local government. It is always argued that there are technical difficulties which make it impossible to allow regulations to be invoked. It is always said that there are technical difficulties, and that such a step would upset or offend this or that group, and it would cause difficulties. As those hon. Members who have been kind enough to read the information that I have often sent them will know the universal, non-partisan conclusion is that the problems are simply perceived and are not real. In practice it is perfectly possible for a governing body to operate effectively, knowing that what is said will be open to immediate public access and scrutiny. The only change is that standards of presentation and of argument on the part of governors would have to improve. Governors would no longer be able to get away with an irresponsible, rather unfair or subjective aside which might have passed for judgment in days gone by.
We have half a loaf, and we should be thankful for that. The amendment which I moved in Committee and which now appears as the new clause shows the way forward. I commend that way forward to my hon. Friend the Minister. I appreciate that we shall need consultation, and


that we should get things right before we embark on such a course, but access to information is a vital concomitant to a progressive and modern education service.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Norris) has just said. I am in favour of extending to parents as much control over schools as possible. If we are to improve education, which is, at the moment, rather an uphill task, it is desirable to make schools and their governing bodies as responsive to the consumer as possible. One way in which schools can be made responsive to the consumer is to meet the principle that underpins new clause 12. For that reason I am sympathetic to what my hon. Friend has said, and I support his broad objectives.
On the principle that half a loaf is better than no loaf, I propose to support new clause 18. It is the kind of clause that will delight officials and should distress parliamentarians, because it is an enabling clause. It does remarkably little. It merely empowers a Minister to embark on the process of secondary legislation. We must ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State what it obliges him to do. The answer is that it does not oblige him to do anything.
Let us consider new clause 18. The Secretary of State "may make regulations". That is nice. He "may make regulations" but equally he may not make them. It is not a mandatory duty.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in Committee we discovered that several of the regulating powers which the Minister had taken in the Education Act 1980 had still not been brought into effect by him?

Mr. Hogg: That is true of every major statute that provides for secondary legislation that I have ever encountered. From the early 1960s, statute after statute empowers Ministers to make regulations, although they frequently do not do so. That is my point. These provisions do not require the Secretary of State to do anything. He can scratch his head and say, "I am able to do so, but I do not choose to do so." No one can say anything about that. If the Minister persuades himself to make regulations what will they say? New clause 18 is remarkably silent on that.
The Secretary of State may make regulations
requiring the governing body … to make available, to such persons or classes of person as may be prescribed.
That is interesting. We do not know what will be prescribed. It is entirely within the Secretary of State's discretion. What will he do? He will make available such
documents and information relating to the meetings and proceedings of the governing body as may be prescribed.
There is no mandatory duty there.
Subsection (2) of the new clause states:
Documents and information required by the regulations to be made available shall be made available in such form and manner, and at such times, as may be prescribed.
The magic phrase appears for the third time. It is a splendid enabling new clause, but it does not tell my hon. Friend the Minister what he has to do, to whom the information is to be released and in what circumstances it is to be released.
I am an enemy of secondary legislation. For important matters, the House needs to create the statutory duties and

to impose the statutory conditions. I am against leaving such things to secondary legislation, both as a matter of principle and as a matter of practice. After all, we all know that my hon. Friend the Minister will come along with regulations that may, or may not be debated. Even if they are debated, the debate will be on a motion to affirm or negative them. As we all know, such motions are taken late at night for one and half hours, and are not amendable. Thus, we shall be given the privileged opportunity of rejecting or accepting the regulations in their totality. That is not a proper way of dealing with matters of major importance.
On the principle that half a loaf is a damned sight better than no loaf at all, I shall support new clause 18. It would be a mistake, however, for my hon. Friend the Minister to suppose that the House is wholly satisfied with it. I am sure that the House would like to see a more robust approach in future.

Mr. Chris Patten: Although the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) thought that I should be prepared to think again, I am afraid that I am not prepared to do so despite his moving and worthy tributes to my hon. and very able Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Norris). Indeed, new clause 18 is a small tribute to the eloquence, passion and enthusiasm that my hon. Friend has shown in the cause of access to information.
We look forward to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) on the draft regulations, and we shall publish the draft regulations as soon as we reasonably can. New clause 12 seeks to apply the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 to the governing bodies of schools and establishments of further education. That would have two effects. First, it would make the governing body's agenda, papers and minutes more widely available. After discussion in Committee, the Government accepted the logic of that, and new clause 18 makes appropriate provision. However, I realise that my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham would have preferred us to act otherwise.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Although I understand why the words "as may be prescribed" are in the new clause, I do not understand why the first sentence says:
The Secretary of State may make regulations".
Why does it not say "shall make regulations"?

Mr. Patten: We pursued formulas that had been used before. But I am happy to make it clear that we shall be bringing forward draft regulations, and will look forward to comments on them.
We believe that our approach in new clause 18 is much more straightforward than applying the Local Government (Access to Information) Act, which would need various modifications to fit it to the particular circumstances of governing bodies. The need for such modifications underlines the important point that governing bodies should not be seen simply as part of the local government structure. It has been the intention since the 1944 Act that a governing body should be an independent voice speaking for its school in the local partnership. The Bill aims to make that a reality in all cases.
That brings me to the second effect of seeking to apply the Local Government (Access to Information) Act, which


would be to allow public access to meetings. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East referred to what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said in Committee. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary then argued that, unlike local authority councils or committees, properly meeting in public, meetings of a governing body are not formal events in the administrative process but part of that process itself. He went on to argue that the closest analogy might be to a meeting of education department officials. I accept that. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East and I disagree on this point. I believe passionately, although perhaps not as passionately as he does, in there being reasonable access to public discussion and documents, but the logic of my hon. Friend's argument sometimes makes him tip over into the assumption that any decision made in public will be better than a decision that is not made in public.

Mr. Norris: I fear that it is not me who is tipping over on this occasion. My hon. Friend's well known intellect and moderation will have enabled him to observe that there is qualitative difference between the meeting of an education committee's group of officers, whose job involves planning to carry out a policy that has been given to that committee by elected members who meet in public, and the meeting of a groups of governors who have been appointed from among a variety of interest groups so that they have special qualities and views to bring to bear on any debate. In part, the latter make policy and in part they make a significant input into a local school. Thus, their meetings are much more important to the community than any meeting of an education committee's officers. If that is not so, it is an indictment more of the officers' meeting than of the inadequacies of the provisions made by school governors.

Mr. Patten: I do not think that my hon. Friend and I will have a meeting of minds on this point, but perhaps I should try another tack. The Government also consider that unfettered public access to working meetings would be wrong. In my judgment, the effectiveness of governing bodies as a means of securing co-operative effort from governors drawn from a variety of sources would be severely hampered if they were required to meet in public, even with some safeguards for confidential matters.
I invite the House to consider the practical implications of allowing public access to meetings. In some cases, it might be very difficult for parents to share in the responsibilities that we want them to have. I wonder whether parent governors would always be able to perform to their full potential in raising and exploring inevitably awkward questions about standards and discipline in the face of a large, and possibly hostile, audience. That is not to say that governing bodies should be secretive. New clause 18 will ensure that their papers and the records of their proceedings are appropriately open. Governors would also be able to report back to those whom they represent. The governing body as a whole will he fully accountable to the parent body once a year through the annual report and parents' meeting.
Additionally, it is our intention that the post-Act guidance will encourage governing bodies to be as open as possible in their proceedings by inviting observers or allowing public access as they think fit. But we see it as crucial to the effective function of governing bodies that the attendance of non-members should be under their

control. The House will note that I have set out my case based on my judgment of some of the principles involved. I know that it is always a dirty trick to make my next point, but there would be technical difficulties—

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Drafting errors.

Mr. Patten: —in making this apparently simple amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham is as perceptive as ever. Much work would be needed to ensure that various provisions of the Local Government (Access to Information) Act were appropriate to the special context of governing bodies. In the light of all that, I hope that the House will accept the Government's new clause, even if some hon. Members think that it is only half a loaf. I also invite the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East to withdraw his motion and new clause. But should he wish to press it to a Division, I must urge hon. Members to reject it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): In response to the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) and in order to help the House, I should say that if new clause 18 is added to the Bill, new clause 12 will automatically fall.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 19

RECOUPMENT: CROSS-BORDER PROVISIONS

`(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring or authorising payments of amounts determined by or under the regulations to be made by one authority to another where—

(a) the authority receiving the payment makes, in such cases or circumstances as may he specified in the regulations, provision for education in respect of a pupil having such connection with the area of the paying authority as may be so specified; and
(b) one of the authorities is a local education authority and the other an education authority in Scotland.

(2) The basis on which amounts payable under the regulations are to be determined shall be such as the Secretary of State sees fit to specify in the regulations and may, in particular, be similar to that adopted by him in relation to directions given under section 48(1) of this Act.

(3) Any question concerning the connection of any pupil with the area of a particular local education authority or education authority shall be decided in accordance with the provisions of the regulations.

(4) The reference in subsection (1) above to provision for education includes a reference to provision of any benefits or services for which provision is made by or under the enactments relating to education.'.—[Mr. Dunn.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

6 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Dunn): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 16 — A Survey of Recoupment—
`Before implementing the provisions of section 48, the Secretary of State shall set up a survey of the financial and educational consequences of changes to the present system of recoupment.'.
Amendment No. 174, in clause 48, page 54, line 7, after 'amount' insert
'reflecting the average cost of provision to the providing authority'.


Amendment No. 175, in page 54, line 7, after 'agree', insert
'provided that such an amount does not exceed the total cost of tuition.'.
Amendment No. 176, in page 54, line 8, after 'amount', insert
'reflecting the average cost of provision to the providing authority'.
Government amendment No. 177.

Mr. Dunn: The new clause provides for the making of regulations dealing with cross-border recoupment between England and Wales and Scotland and vice versa.
Although, generally speaking, clause 48 both covers and extends the provisions for recoupment which appear in section 31 of the Education Act 1980, it does not contain a provision corresponding to that found in section 31(5). The latter provides a regulation-making power to deal with recoupment between education authorities north and south of the border. The purpose of the new clause is to remedy that omission.
The reason why that step was not taken earlier is that there were technical complications arising from the fact that the 1980 Act provision was subsequently re-enacted, for Scotland, in the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. That has given rise to doubts as to the scope of the powers to make one set of regulations binding on authorities on both sides of the border. Discussion between the respective education departments in London, Cardiff and Edinburgh has led to the conclusion that, in order to clarify the position, there should be included in the present Bill provision empowering the Secretary of State at large to make regulations governing cross-border recoupment between English and Welsh local education authorities and Scottish education authorities. To avoid adding more material to the already lengthy clause 48, the required provision has been set out in a new clause with reference as appropriate to relevant parts of clause 48.
Government amendment No. 177 is a drafting amendment designed to protect the freedom of providing authorities to refuse admission to further education students from other authorities when they know that recoupment will not be forthcoming.
Recoupment in schools is already automatic. That is, the providing local education authorities have an automatic entitlement to recoupment in respect of provision made for pupils of other authorities. The clause extends the principle of automatic recoupment to most, but not all, non-advanced further education. The exact scope of automatic recoupment in FE will be prescribed in regulations to be made under subsection (2). The purpose of subsection (5) is to support the free movement of students across local education authority boundaries by providing that it shall not be a ground for refusing admission to a student that he or she lives in the area of another local education authority.
The Government have decided, however, that it is unreasonable to expect authorities to bear the cost of providing for students not falling within the scope of automatic recoupment whose home authorities refuse consent to pay. It seems likely that a refusal to admit on the grounds that the home local education authority would not pay recoupment would be considered by the courts as tantamount to a refusal on the grounds of residence in the area of another authority. The application

of subsection (5) therefore needs to be restricted to students to whom automatic recoupment applies, and the amendment to subsection (6) is designed to enable that to be done.

Mr. Mark Fisher: The Under-Secretary asks us to accept new clause 19, which provides yet again for the making of more regulations. It is sad that the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) is not in his place to support us. His spirit may be with us on this matter. We would have welcomed his voice supporting us, because many of the things that he said about new clause 18 apply equally to new clause 19.
When moving new clause 18 the Minister of State wrapped himself in a cloak of generous flexibility—

Mr. Chris Patten: Not for long.

Mr. Fisher: The Minister's attitude was not very generous or flexible for as long as it lasted. The Government were defeated time and again in Committee, often on non-controversial matters, so it is surprising that their response to the debates in Committee is a small matter of only two clauses, to put right the many arguments that they lost resoundingly. Those arguments often came from the Government's own Back Benches, as well as from the Opposition Benches. It is hardly generous or flexible that we have the two new clauses, particularly as everyone on both sides of the House has said, because new clause 18 goes only half way to meet the point. New clause 19 seems to have missed the point altogether.
I take the point that the Under-Secretary made about cross-border recoupment for Scotland, but he will appreciate that in Committee other matters were raised that represented important considerations for local government, both financially and legally. It is sad that the Minister has not managed to add to the new clause some way of addressing those problems, which he acknowledged in the debate were serious matters.
The Minister will recall that he said at our 12th sitting that he would
undertake to reconsider the matter without any commitment to taking action on Report." —[Official Report, Standing Committee B: 8 July 1986, c. 560.]
Much to our disappointment, the hon. Gentleman has failed to do so. The new clause would have commanded greater support on both sides of the House had that happened. The points that we were making on the problems of recoupment were directed not only at the deficiencies in relation to Scotland, but at redistribution in general. They were about the savings that the Minister claimed would be made through recoupment. We wondered whether the recoupment clause included adult education. The problem of further education is at the base of the recoupment problem and, sadly, the new clause does not tackle that at all.
In so far as the Government address the problem of recoupment at all, as the hon. Member for Grantham said, the new clause will do very little. It provides for the making of regulations, which, under the terms of the new clause, will be unspecific. Subsection (1) refers to the eligibility of pupils. It refers to
a pupil having such connection with the area of the paying authority as may be so specified".
Perhaps when he responds to the debate the Under-Secretary will say how the regulations will address the problem of connection and eligibility. How will he specify


that in his regulations? It would be helpful to hon. Members on both sides of the House if he gave us some idea of how the regulations will be addressed.
The most important subsection is subsection (2), which addresses the problem of the basis for determining the amounts. Whether it relates to Scotland or to the whole of the United Kingdom is at the nub of the debate on recoupment. First, the Government are not certain of the basis, because the clause states:
as the Secretary of State sees fit to specify in the regulations".
The House will be asked to approve the new clause having had to guess what the basis of redistribution will be. Secondly, the argument is turned in on itself by the Government when they refer us back to the original clause 48(1). Either way, it is extremely unsatisfactory that we do not know, and local authorities will be no wiser after today's debate, and after the Bill becomes an Act, about what form redistribution will take and on what basis they must plan their finances.
The new clause is totally deficient and lacking in the information to which local authorities will have to address themselves, particularly in regard to further education. In Committee the Under-Secretary recognised that further education would be a real problem, both in the uncertainty of the sums concerned and in whether they will be anticipated in a further year. We in the Labour party make our position clear in new clause 16 and amendments Nos. 174 to 176. In our new clause, we ask for a survey so that before the Minister rushes into giving those unspecified and unclear directions to local authorities he understands what the financial implications will be. In Committee the hon. Gentleman was not able to tell us what information he had on the financial implications for local authorities, and he did not address himself to that matter today.
If the House is to be asked to do something strange for local government, which is to ask one local authority to allow its neighbouring authority to commit itself and its ratepayers to financial consequences in a following year, the Minister should have a clear idea of the scale of the problem for local authorities. In Committee we gave the Under-Secretary some suggestions of the financial consequences feared by some local authorities such as Northumberland and Staffordshire—perhaps £1 million a year for Staffordshire and even rising to £3 million a year by the 1990s.
It will be difficult to ask the ratepayers affected by recoupment to shoulder such additional expense. The Under-Secretary would be better advised to accept new clause 16, which would give him time to look at the financial consequences. He could go back to the shire counties and other authorities—which often border on metropolitan areas—and get a clear idea of the financial implications of what he expects to be undertaken by other authorities on their behalf. This is a strange and new concept in local government finance.
I commend to the House amendments Nos. 174 to 176. They would improve the new clause enormously. They are addressed, as I hope the regulations will be—perhaps the Under-Secretary will enlighten the House on whether that is so—to the technical method of assessing the cost of one local authority as against another. Amendments Nos. 174 and 176 suggest that the method should be based on the average cost of provision. In amendment No. 175 we state that the cost should not exceed the cost of tuition.

Local authorities need to know the basis on which these regulations will be formed, so that they may anticipate the future costs that will fall to them.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will recognise that these are serious considerations and that he will be able to tell the House considerably more about the regulations, for which he is asking the House to give him an open cheque. Unfortunately, the open cheque will have to be cashed by many of the local authorities.

Mr. Dunn: I had hoped that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) would have been converted to our point of view, which we expressed so eloquently in Committee, regarding the question of recoupment.
We made it plain that the whole thrust of the legislation which we were presenting was to make available, to many more people, a variety of provisions which may exist outside the local education authority area in which they live. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central has not been converted to the idea of the free market of choice—in which I believe—in the few weeks since we last met in Committee.
We have adopted a flexible approach. In earlier exchanges between Opposition Members and my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg)—whose opinion I always respect on so many matters—

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Hear, hear.

Mr. Giles Radice: Do not overdo it.

Mr. Dunn: I do not wish to be accused of overdoing anything. If anything, I am accused of being rather laid back on too many occasions for the good of debates in the House.
The House will recall that clause 48 is not just about the introduction of automatic recoupment in non-advanced further education. One of its main purposes is to update the existing legislation relating to recoupment in primary and secondary schools, as well as further education, the better to reflect the realities of current administrative practice in this complex area, and it goes a long way in clarifying the Secretary of State's powers to determine disputes. The Government would not wish the implementation of these general provisions to be delayed while the proposed survey was put in hand and the new clause, as drafted, is unacceptable for that reason.
Beyond that, we do not believe that such a survey is necessary, or practicable. The Government have always acknowledged that the introduction of automatic recoupment—sometimes called "free trade"—in NAFE would cause some short-term redistribution of costs between LEAs as the real pattern of demand asserts itself. While it would be sensible for local authorities to try to assess the local effects of the introduction of free trade, it would not be practicable to attempt to measure the extent of these short-term gains and losses on a national basis. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, to his credit, referred in Committee to some work done by Staffordshire LEA based on the number of out-county permits refused each year, but even were we to go to the expense of collecting this kind of information from all, or at least a representative sample of authorities—many authorities' records would be far from adequate for this purpose—this would tell us nothing about the number


of students who seek advice informally and are persuaded not to apply, or who assume it is not worth applying for out-of-county places. Neither would such an imperfect "snapshot" indicate how patterns of demand are likely to alter as a result of demographic change, reorganisation of 16 to 19-year-old provision — we debated this in Committee — and the development of YTS and other new kinds of provision. It would, in short, be a time-consuming and expensive exercise which would produce little if anything in the way of meaningful results.

Mr. Fisher: Will the Minister confirm that his scepticism of the survey means that he believes the figures that would be produced would be greatly in excess of the figures that Staffordshire and other authorities have already produced—the figure of between £1 million and £3 million a year? If that is so, the financial problems we anticipate for the local authorities will be horrendous.

Mr. Dunn: I am sure the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central will accept that I have acknowledged that there will be short-term gains and losses depending on the popularity and the availability of certain courses, especially where a number of local authorities meet.
In the long term I do not believe that these manifestations will be a problem. There will be a settling, rather like the settling of sediment at the bottom of a wine decanter. Local authorities can meet informally to discuss how best to rationalise provision. In Committee we spent a great deal of time discussing problems faced by my own constituency of Dartford, but I will not repeat them as it would be too long and tedious for Opposition Members. Committee members were persuaded of the upset and concern of many of my constituents—it may also affect the constituents of Opposition Members—when people find that they have been denied access to institutions of their choice simply because it is in a local authority other than that in which they live. The institution may have been in the local authority in which they work—indeed, the provisions and cases vary.
The House must accept that, under the present voluntary arrangements, LEAs which are so inclined can protect their own colleges at the expense of the freedom of the individual to choose. That is the key to the Government's attitude on the matter.
Protectionism allows the providers to avoid the need to satisfy the real needs of their customers, and probably means that the overall system costs more as a result of this distortion of the market. Of course the adjustment will be painful in some cases: LEAs which suffer a net loss of students to their neighbours will have to bear increased recoupment costs and it will take some time for them to rationalise their provision to the real level of demand and realise offsetting savings. Conversely, those LEAs whose colleges attract more students will be able to make efficiency gains as well as receive more recoupment income.
The Government believe not only that, over time, these movements will balance out but that, in the long term, the creation of a free market in NAFE will prompt the system to become more flexible and more responsive to the needs of its clients, providing better value for money throughout the service. The Government do not believe that this important reform should be delayed pending the outcome

of a survey, a study which can only be based on speculation and guesswork, leading to conclusions of dubious validity.
Amendments Nos. 174 and 176 would change the basis on which costs are recouped so that the amounts concerned, instead of reflecting the national average cost of provision, would reflect the average cost of provision within each providing authority, which could be significantly higher than the national average.
As for the level of such charges, the Government would like the existing system to continue—local authorities to decide for themselves, in the Inter-Authority Payments Committee, the basis of the standard rates which are used for the calculation of the great majority of the sums which local education authorities can recover under the recoupment arrangements. There are, of course, several rates which apply to different types of provision —primary, secondary under school leaving age, secondary over school leaving age, for example—and variants of them apply depending on whether the providing authority has to pay London weighting allowance. In all cases, however, the rates and the variants of them are based on the average cost of such provision, within the totality of the authorities to which the variant applies.
The proposed amendments would deprive such a system of any support in law. Under section 31 of the Education Act 1980, local education authorities are enabled to recoup such amounts as they may agree between themselves. Clause 48 of the present Bill re-enacts this, but under the proposed amendments, instead of local education authorities being entitled collectively to agree to recoup on the basis of standard rates based on the national average cost of provision, providing authorities would be entitled to make claims which reflected only the average cost of provision within the authority concerned.
If local education authorities are, as now, willing to agree collectively to use the national average cost of provision as the basis for recoupment, and if the law now enables then to do so, the Government do not think that it would be sensible, in administrative terms to take the legal basis for that away, and will therefore resist the amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 44

ABOLITION OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT

Mr. Pawsey: I beg to move amendment No. 153, in page 47, line 20, leave out clause 44.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: Amendment No. 154, in page 47, line 31, leave out subsection (3).
Amendment No. 155, in page 47, line 32, leave out
'anything done for reasons that include averting'
and insert
'the use of such force as is reasonable in the circumstances to avert'.
Amendment No. 156, in page 47, line 36, leave out subsection (4).
Amendment No. 157, in page 48, line 6, leave out from `school' to end of line 10.
Amendment No. 158, in page, 48, line 10, at end insert—
`(iv) at a day nursery or other provision for children aged under five maintained or assisted by a local authority'.


Amendment No. 159, in page 48, line 13, leave out 'by a local education' and insert
'or assisted by a local'.
Amendment No. 160, in page 48, line 15, leave out paragraph (c).
Amendment No. 161, in page 48, line 19, leave out subsection (6).
Amendment No. 161, in page 49, line 10, leave out second 'education'.
Amendment No. 163, in page 49, line 12, leave out 'employed by the authority'.
Amendment No. 164, in page 49, line 13, leave out 'employed by the authority'.
Amendment No. 164, in page 49, line 24, leave out Clause 45.
New clause 20—Corporal punishment—
'Decisions on the principle of the administration of reasonable corporal punishment in a school shall be taken by the head teacher in consultation with the governing body and any organisation of parents of children attending the school.'.
Amendment (a) to the proposed new clause, in line 3, at end add
'provided that no such decision is in contradiction of the ruling of the European Court'.

Mr. Pawsey: It might help the House if I outline the events which led to amendment No. 153, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), being tabled. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has done much work on this issue for a considerable time.
In 1982, a judgment by the European Court of Human Rights on corporal punishment in schools said that the philosophical conviction of any parents should be respected. There is, however, no blanket objection to the use of corporal punishment, provided that it is moderate and reasonable. Some local education authorities have banned it using the articles of government of schools. Others have used teachers' contracts of employment. The latter method has yet to be decided on by the courts. I therefore assure the House that, if it votes in favour of the amendment, it would allow governing bodies to decide whether to use corporal punishment. The local education authority would not be able to impose its will on governing bodies using the articles of government.
In an endeavour to clarify the matter, the Education (Corporal Punishment) Bill was introduced last year. The House will remember that it was wrecked in another place. The present Education Bill started life in another place and would prohibit the use of corporal punishment. The amendment produced in another place was drafted defectively, so the Government had to redress that problem. Clauses 44 and 45 are the result.
It will be helpful to recall that the Education (Corporal Punishment) Bill received a Second Reading in the other place but was wrecked on Report. I am not suggesting that that is unique, but it must be rare.
Amendments Nos. 153 and 165 would delete clauses 44 and 45 and restore the status quo in that it would be possible to use corporal punishment in schools. One of the more worrying aspects of this affair is the way in which the other place has disregarded the will of this elected Chamber. The Education (Corporal Punishment) Bill received a Third Reading in this House without Division. Despite that evident unanimity, the other place overturned the Bill. I am not suggesting that that is unconstitutional and I do not deny the right of unelected Peers to impose

their will on what they may describe as the lower Chamber, but this House is truly representative of the British people. It is hon. Members of this House who seek election. The House might therefore agree that wrecking amendments to two Bills to destroy their purpose in a matter which affects almost every family in the land are to be deeply regretted.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I am sure that my hon. Friend does not want to be unfair to the other place. He will recall that, in the Committee on the Education (Corporal Punishment) Bill in 1985, on which I served, hon. Members on both sides expressed grave concern about enabling parents to opt out of corporal punishment. There was a strong feeling in the Committee that, if we complied with the convention and the Court, we would have to proceed to complete abolition. It would be wrong to suggest that there was not a substantial body of support for that policy in this place.

Mr. Pawsey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that genuinely helpful intervention, as he gives me an opportunity to repeat that there was no Division on Third Reading of that Bill.
Thoughtful hon. Members, jealous of this House's powers and traditions, may view the other place's actions with some concern or even trepidation.
One of the Bill's principal aims is the devolution of power and the allocation of responsibility. Amendrnent No. 153 would allow that process to continue in the important area of school discipline. If approved, it would allow local options which reflect the ethos of local society. It would be for the governing body, in the light of discussions with parents and others, to decide whether corporal punishment should be retained.
The Bill provides for an increase in parental representation on governing bodies. It would therefore seem logical that parents should have a considerable say in the discipline of their children. Parents want their children to have an education which is relevant to work. They want their children to obtain worthwhile qualifications. They do not want a casual, sloppy or do-as-youplease attitude in schools. They want discipline in schools. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am grateful to my hon. Friends for that expression of support. I am anxious that schools should decide what is best for them. I do not believe that a blanket decision taken in a council chamber which is miles away in distance and attitude from the school is necessarily right.
The amendment would leave room for the European Court. Its decision would stand, and no child would be caned against the wishes of the parent. Here is a British solution to a European-induced dilemma. Those who dislike what they regard as European interference in the United Kingdom's domestic affairs have here an opportunity to redress matters.

Mr. Marlow: If this House of elected representatives of the British people decided that corporal punishment should be retained, is it not overwhelmingly apparent that the European Court of Human Rights or whatever else it cares to call itself would have no status whatever in the issue, in moral terms at the very least?

Mr. Pawsey: I hear what my hon. Friend says and I am well aware of his views on Europe, whether on court


matters or otherwise. If he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will no doubt pursue the case that he wishes to argue.
A teacher acting in loco parentis has the right to act as a moderate and reasonable parent would act. If that moderate and reasonable parent sees fit to use corporal punishment to restrain the child, why should not the caring teacher have a similar right when standing in place of the parent?
Corporal punishment is a matter of considerable importance. Britain has a tradition of corporal punishment in schools. Other nations have their own customs and remedies for school misdemeanours. In France, a child is punished by suspension from school and during that period the social security benefits due in respect of the child are also suspended, so the family can lose a tangible measure of state financial support. The House may feel that when such a remedy is imposed there is no need to cane the child.

Mr. Stuart Bell: Having lived in France for 17 years, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take it from me that children subject to discipline in French schools do not have social security payments withdrawn. The procedure that the hon. Gentleman describes relates to truancy, and the French embassy confirms that even in those cases it is extremely rarely used. The hon. Gentleman should get his facts right.

Mr. Pawsey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I note that he does not deny that in France a child may be punished in that way for a misdemeanour. Truancy is a misdemeanour like any other and the hon. Gentleman admits that the child in question may be punished by suspension and withdrawal of social security payments.

Mr. Robert Key: That is a travesty. It is not the child that is being punished but the parents.

Mr. Pawsey: With the utmost respect to my hon. Friend, that makes matters even worse, because the parents suffer for the errors of the child.
In the Soviet Union, a different method is used. The child's misdemeanours are exhibited on the information board in the factory where the father works. That solution, or the remedy adopted by the French, may commend itself to the House, but I very much doubt it.
In the United States, the decision on corporal punishment is made at local level. In Australia and Canada, it is made on a state-by-state basis. In New Zealand and India, corporal punishment is permitted, so it is quite wrong to suppose that the United Kingdom is unique in retaining corporal punishment.
Members who are minded to vote against the amendment should be honest enough to say what they would put in place of corporal punishment to fill the vacuum left by its abolition. In the wake of the European judgment, about 25 per cent. of English authorities have a policy of aboliton and in schools where corporal punishment is available it is infrequently used.
The principal argument for the cane is not its frequent use but its deterrent effect. Only last week, a respected head teacher of a middle school in my constituency told me that he had a cane but that he could not remember when it was last used. He argued that when a child was sent

to his room to be punished for a misdemeanour it would be at the back of the child's mind that the cane might be used. A cane in a corner is a powerful deterrent. It does not have to be used for it to be effective. The era of thrashing, beating and whacking is over. The emotive talk of cruelty to children perpetrated by adults is an exaggeration. The cane is a simple aid to discipline in the same way as the blackboard is an aid to learning.

Mr. David Winnick: The hon. Gentleman talks of the cane as a powerful deterrent, but has he seen the photograph in The London Standard showing the marks on a boy punished with a cane? That is a disgraceful state of affairs. Is that the kind of society that the hon. Gentleman wants to encourage? He should look at that photograph and tell the House whether he condones what happened to that boy.

Mr. Pawsey: No one could condone that kind of activity, but hard cases make bad law. It is impossible to legislate for perfection. There will always be exceptions, but there are measures of redress that parents can properly take in the type of situation described by the hon. Gentleman. A teacher in loco parentis should be acting as a reasonable and moderate parent should act. Clear breaches of that principle are obviously wrong and no one could justify them, but that does not damage the basic principle of my argument today.
The amendment would enable the head teacher, together with the governing body, to reach what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State described on 10 June as
a suitable arrangement which would recognise the finding of the European Court of Human Rights that the philosophical convictions of any parent should be respected."—[Official Report, 10 June 1986; Vol. 99, c. 186.]
As ever, my right hon. Friend summed up the situation in a nutshell.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: rose—

Mr. Pawsey: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will not give way.
If corporal punishment is not available, what will its opponents put in its place? Do they want more suspensions and expulsions? Which does the greater damage to the pupil, exclusion from school or two strokes of the cane on the hand? If detention is thought to be the answer, what is to happen in areas where children depend on the school bus as the only means of transport?
Children require a disciplined environment for learning. Without discipline, there is bullying, time-wasting, vandalism and indifference. Fair and reasonable discipline provides an essential framework for learning.
Conservative Members have a free vote on this. We shall vote according to conscience and belief, but can the same be said for the Opposition?

Mr. Radice: Yes.

Mr. Pawsey: I understand that there is a three-line Whip for the Opposition. How do Labour Members reconcile that with their new slogan of freedom and fairness? Where is their freedom to vote as their conscience dictates? Where is the fairness? Indeed, where are Labour Members today when the House is discussing a matter of key importance to families throughout the country? We recognise that there is room for honest and genuine disagreement on this. It would be unfortunate for the


reputation of this House if Opposition Members were prevented from voting in accordance with their own consciences.
The strength of the amendment is that it will maintain the status quo. It will permit the use of the cane, and I believe that a cane in the corner of a head's study is a positive force for good in schools and that its presence helps teachers in the classroom.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Come off it.

Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Gentleman says, "Come off it," but he was a practising teacher, and he will understand the strength of the point that I have just made.
This Education Bill seeks to improve the quality and standard of education in our state schools, and that is where the majority of our children are educated. My amendment will merely assist and continue that process.

Mr. Radice: I speak against the amendments, which would, if accepted, retain corporal punishment, and in favour of clauses 44 and 45, which abolish corporal punishment in England, Wales and Scotland.
We in the Labour party believe that corporal punishment is barbaric, inhumane, degrading both to the chastiser and chastised, and, by its nature, open to abuse. Anyone who has doubts about whether it is open to abuse should glance at page 5 of The London Standard of tonight, which contains an article about an independent Anglican grammar school. There is also a photograph showing the bruises on a 13-year-old pupil who was given five strokes of the cane by the head of his school for getting low marks in an internal exam.
In my view, that picture says far more than all the statistics, but the statistics are bad enough. There are 200,000 officially recorded instances of corporal punishment each year. Some schools have recorded hundreds of instances each year, and in a few schools the same children receive corporal punishment again and again. Unfortunately, cases of abuse are far too frequent, and they include girls and pupils who are physically and mentally handicapped. The fact is that the use of force —which outside the classroom is defined as battery—is inherently dangerous and open to abuse. It is no wonder that corporal punishment has been abolished in every other European country and that the movement in most advanced countries, except South Africa, is towards abolition.
The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) said that in the United States and Australia this was a local decision. He forgets that both Australia and the United States are federal countries where education is a state responsibility. Most of the states in America have abolished corporal punishment as have the two largest states in Australia. The hon. Gentleman might have said that before he used his facts.
It is also no wonder that 90 per cent. of Scottish schools do not use corporal punishment and that more than a quarter of English local education authorities have abolished it. I am pleased to say that this morning Wiltshire county council voted to abolish corporal punishment. The vote was 39 to 24. Two Conservatives voted with Labour and Liberal councillors. I hope that rather more Conservatives will vote against corporal punishment tonight.
There is only one respectable argument in favour of corporal punishment — we heard a bit of it, but not much, from the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth — which is that without such a sanction it would be more difficult to maintain order in the school. There is no hard evidence to support that contention, and it certainly does not justify the dangers of abuse that I described earlier. There is no evidence that discipline in European or Scottish schools is inferior to the discipline in English and Welsh schools. Can any hon. Member produce such evidence?
6.45 pm
There is no evidence that discipline in English and Welsh schools where corporal punishment has been abolished is inferior to schools where corporal punishment is still retained. Indeed, such evidence as we have suggests that the use of corporal punishment may be counterproductive. The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), was fond of quoting the well-known study of London secondary schools entitled "15,000 Hours". That study found that there was a tendency for high levels of corporal punishment to be associated with unruly behaviour. There is similar evidence from Scotland and Wales as well. It is surely significant that no country and no local education authority has reintroduced corporal punishment once having got rid of it.
I understand that the Secretary of State will not speak on the issue tonight. But on Second Reading he made great play of the fact that heads and governing bodies wished to retain corporal punishment. He might also have pointed out that all the teaching bodies are now, in favour of abolition.

Mr. Chris Patten: In a genuine spirit of inquiry, is that now the official position of the Professional Association of Teachers or the NAS/UWT?

Mr. Radice: Yes, the PAT has changed its position, and following the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, the NAS/UWT has now come out in favour of abolition.
Most professional teachers believe that good discipline and order is far better maintained by firm, constructive and purposeful teaching. We all accept that problems and difficulties arise in classes, but a variety of options exist to deal with such disciplinary matters, including reprimands, reports, parental involvement, withdrawal, suspension and exclusion. All are used by local authorities where corporal punishment has been abolished.

Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Gentleman has just referred to exclusions. Is he telling the House that if corporal punishment is abolished we shall see an increase in the number of exclusions?

Mr. Radice: Not necessarily. I have already quoted the evidence from local authorities where corporal punishment has been abolished, and as I pointed out, behaviour is likely to be better.
The truth is—as the experience of other countries and the schools in England, Scotland and Wales show—that corporal punishment is not necessary to maintain discipline or to deal with disciplinary problems.
Some hon. Members may not so far be persuaded by my arguments. Those who remain in favour of corporal punishment must face up to the consequences of the


binding decision of the European Court of Human Rights. The Prime Minister has said on many occasions that she believes that Britain ought to obey the European Court. The decision in February 1982 in the Campbell and Cosans case upheld under article 2 the rights of parents who oppose corporal punishment.
As hon. Members will be aware, the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East, introduced in January 1985 his Education (Corporal Punishment) Bill, which attempted to produce a scheme that provided a right of exemption for parents who did not wish their children to suffer corporal punishment.

Mr. Gerald Bowden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Radice: No. I have given way twice, and many hon. Members wish to speak.
The opt-out scheme, which we voted against on a reasoned amendment on Second Reading, was almost universally condemned as being unworkable. Indeed, the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) condemned it because it would create two classes of discipline in schools. In the end it was destroyed in the House of Lords. When this Bill was introduced in the House of Lords a clause was added which had the effect of abolishing corporal punishment. Its form may not have been perfect and we amended it in Committee to improve it, but the House of Lords decision was wise because it represented the only practical way of complying with the European Court of Human Rights ruling. Theoretically it may be possible to create two classes of schools, but, as the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East pointed out, that would have enormous practical difficulties, especially in rural areas, and would be hugely expensive.
I have to say that the option espoused by the Secretary of State is not a runner. On Second Reading he explained that he wanted to leave the matter to the new governing bodies and to the heads of schools, and that he wanted schools which continue with corporal punishment to agree suitable arrangements for recognising the conviction of parents who are against corporal punishment. That amounts to a much weakened version of the opt-out scheme of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East.
If arrangements for opting out are introduced in schools, there will be the problem of two classes of discipline which was universally condemned as unworkable earlier. If arrangements are not introduced, it will be a flagrant breach of the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights. The Secretary of State has already accepted that because he has said that he will monitor the scheme, and that if it does not work, he will return to the old legal opt-out scheme of the former Secretary of State. Even in its present form there is a strong possibility that the Secretary of State's scheme fails to comply with our obligations under the European Convention in that it does not provide a legal right for parents. Certainly there would be a continuing risk of litigation. Hon. Members should remember that more than 30 cases from the United Kingdom are now pending at Strasbourg.
When the Secretary of State made his first speech to the House on Second Reading of the Education Bill, he put forward what he clearly thought was a clever cop-out, but in reality he refused to accept the logic of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights. In doing so he

failed to face up to his responsibility both to the House and to the schools of England, Scotland and Wales. This evening we have the opportunity to put the matter right. I urge hon. Members to vote in favour of abolition.
We in the Labour party believe that corporal punishment is barbaric, inhumane and open to abuse, so we shall vote against it. Even if Conservative Members remain in favour of its retention, I urge them to consider the following crucial point: the only practical way to comply with the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, to retain a workable, efficient system of discipline, and to avoid the problem of two classes of discipline is to vote for the abolition of corporal punishment and against the retentionist amendments which will produce only muddle, confusion and chaos. The only way to produce a lasting and effective solution is to vote against corporal punishment.

Mr. Graham Bright: The importance of discipline and order in our schools as a condition for successful teaching and learning is understood by everyone. The fact that there are widely differing views, certainly in the Conservative party, about the principle and practice of corporal punishment is not surprising. It is essential that we resolve this dispute tonight.
I am opposed to corporal punishment in schools, for two main reasons. First, it is wrong in principle for children to be exposed to physical sanctions and pain which would bring criminal proceedings if they were exercised on an adult. We have outlawed corporal punishment in every area, including in the armed services, yet we reserve it for young people. It is absent from adult life, and it is wholly wrong to impose it on the young. Its practice is undoubtedly humiliating to the teacher who imposes it and to the pupil who receives it. The art of teaching lies in gaining the attention and winning the respect of pupils, and the power to inflict pain is fundamentally incompatible with that objective. In the debate we have heard a call for the cane in the corner. It is a symbol of fear and does not in any way produce the sort of environment for education, teaching, or learning.
My second objection is that corporal punishment is not generally effective. It may be a deterrent to some children, but to others it certainly is not. Children from broken or disturbed homes where physical punishment is the rule rather than the exception are taught that problems can be solved by force. All too often that lesson has tragic consequences later in life. Some teenagers relish a record of punishment as a status symbol, and the same name often crops up again and again in punishment books, often for the same offence. That proves conclusively that corporal punishment is not a deterrent.
It is by no means clear where the borderline between reasonable and moderate lies. Beating a child with a stick cannot possibly be considered to be moderate or reasonable. It is violent. All too often teachers step across that borderline, with disastrous results. Indeed, that is clearly illustrated in a picture in this evening's London Standard. Innumerable similar cases can be reported. They are not isolated instances. A youngster of eight had his finger twisted for the rest of his life because of caning. A youngster of 11 had his finger broken because of caning. A youngster of nine had bleeding hands because he was caned merely for bad work and nothing worse. I would not


vote in favour of corporal punishment if I thought that one of those instances would happen, let alone the whole list that can he produced.
The problem now is to reach a coherent solution. In Scotland corporal punishment has been officially discouraged since 1968 and pupils on reaching their majority at 16 become exempt, unless they choose otherwise. In England and Wales local education authorities and school governing bodies have been able to determine their schools' policies. It is no accident that in recent years there has been a strong drift towards abolition in line with the rest of Europe. The tendency has increased since the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the philosophical convictions of parents had to be respected.
I do not believe that giving local education authorities and school governing bodies the option to retain or relinquish corporal punishment is a coherent policy. It is a recipe for local particularism. It will lead to neighbouring schools and authorities having entirely different disciplinary sanctions.

7 pm

Mr. Gerald Bowden: I accept that there may be a philosophical reason why parents object to their child being subject to corporal punishment, but will my hon. Friend accept that there are some parents—I am one of them — who would rather their child received a short sharp shock, delivered with a controlled and caring approach, than be expelled from school, with all the disadvantages that flow from that, such as disturbance to family life and all the temptations that come to children when they are no longer in school? Will he accept that as a philosophical conviction?

Mr. Bright: My hon. Friend suggests that it is either thrashing or expulsion. That is nonsense.

Mr. Bowden: Expulsion was offered as a sanction.

Mr. Bright: I am not talking about expulsion. It is a last resort, and I accept that it still occurs, but if my hon. Friend examines the experience of some of the areas where corporal punishment has been banned, such as Birmingham, he will find that the number of expulsions has decreased. That does not bear out what he suggests. There are other areas where corporal punishment has been banned that show the same trend.

Mr. John Carlisle: I respect the views of my hon. Friend, which are well known to me as a fellow Luton Member. He said that the same rules should apply in all schools. Does he accept that in his constituency there are certain schools with rather more problems than one finds in others? Will he accept also that schools in problem areas might have to have end-of-the-road punishments available to teachers? The situations that those teachers face are very different from those in other schools. We are talking about a deterrent. I hope that my hon. Friend will not dwell too much on facts that support his case and ignore the deterrent that is posed by the cane.

Mr. Bright: I accept that there are differences in behaviour in different schools. There are also differences in the approach of different head teachers and teachers. If we allow individual schools to make up their own minds, some schools will have corporal punishment and some will not. Worse still—this is what makes a dog's breakfast of the proposal — there will be schools with corporal punishment, and it will be the right of parents to withdraw

their children from that punishment. That will produce two classes of pupil in one school. That would be madness. That would do nothing to help the maintenance of discipline in school. The entire system would be wrecked.
Those who support the proposal before us will be voting for chaos, and nothing less than that. I am against corporal punishment, and I believe that we cannot support something that is nothing more than a dog's breakfast. If a school decides that it will no longer apply corporal punishment, there will be no turning back. It is not something that can suddenly be returned. It is a fact that corporal punishment will gradually phase itself out in any event, and I want to ensure that it is brought to an end tonight.
It is possible to devise a disciplinary system that is based on rewards for good behaviour. At the same time, there can be a range of penalties, such as class reports, loss of privileges, lines, detention and interviews with parents. Such a system undoubtedly requires more commitment from pupils, teachers and parents. The teachers have taken that on board which is why the teachers' unions and the head teachers support this approach. Our neighbours in Europe have shown that such a system can work. This is our opportunity to come into the 20th century, to abandon the cane and to adopt what I believe is a much more positive approach to education.

Mr. Jack Ashley: The hon. Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright) made a fine speech. I have never heard such a bad speech from the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey). The hon. Gentleman tried to observe the letter of the EEC regulations, while dodging their spirit. He was trying to have it both ways and, of course, he failed.
The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth offered the House a completely bogus argument in saying that Britain has always had corporal punishment and that it is a tradition. Imagine the House debating slavery and advocates of that practice saying, "We have always had slavery in this country and it is a tradition." Imagine our predecessors in this place saying, "We have always denied women the vote, so why should we now allow women to vote? It is a tradition that they have not had the vote." [Interruption.] I know that even now some hon. Members do not like the concept of women having the vote. Some Members prefer slavery and others prefer corporal punishment. Let it be understood that the tradition argument is bogus and nonsensical.
The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth was offering us a message of despair, in stark contrast to the message offered by Mr. Martin Rosenbaum of the Society of Teachers Opposed to Physical Punishment. He has presented a marvellous message of enlightenment, in which he sets out how Britain can rid itself of corporal punishment to the advantage of teachers and pupils. I pay tribute to Mr. Rosenbaum for the fine work that he has done on behalf of STOPP. Those who oppose STOPP surely do not know anything about the research that it has conducted.
The argument for the retention of corporal punishment is too simple, given the complexity of the problem of maintaining discipline in schools. The advocates of this approach adopt a hanging and flogging mentality, and I suggest that that has no place in the House of Commons now.
When we see a child being awkward and difficult, we are often tempted to give it a clip around the ear. Sometimes we want to take that course. We tended to think in the old days that a clip around the ear by a teacher or a policeman solved the problem. It did not. We are seeing the past through rose-tinted spectacles. Clips around the ear imposed injuries and the practice was wrong. It made children resentful and that resentment lasted for life. It is wrong that lifelong resentment should be created when it is thought that a child has done wrong and when the child may think that he has done right. The child may sometimes realise that he has done wrong, but we cannot meet a wrongdoing by hitting somebody, by punching him or by using weapons. I cannot accept that civilised Members of this place are so brutal, stupid, uncivilised and old-fashioned as to believe that hitting someone can solve a problem. That is not the way to deal with the profound problems of control.
I shall make a short speech because I know that many other Members wish to participate in the debate. I believe that it is wrong to try to gain compliance by using force and brutality on children. That is wrong in principle and fallacious in practice. I believe that violence brutalises and begets violence. Some schoolchildren hit back at their teachers, but, even if not then, violence may beget violence later on. Violence is counter-productive. Violence demeans the pupil as well as the teacher. Violence creates rather than solves problems. I therefore hope that the House will use this rare opportunity of taking a real step forward towards a more civilised society. We are not asking for softness or sentimentality. We are asking for a reasonable method of dealing with children in schools. Let us get rid of one element of violence in our violent society, and thereby help teachers and pupils too.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I do not doubt for a moment the sincerity of the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), but I cannot agree with what he says. My remarks are based upon 23 years in the classroom, no fewer than 12 of which were spent in a comprehensive for 1,100 boys in King's Cross, where I was deputy head. With respect, I believe that it is possible to get away from the real world when considering this important issue.
I would never condone bad practice. If properly reported, the example given in The London Standard today is an example of extremely bad practice. To cane a child for bad work is a serious misuse of the cane. If pupils fail to do their best, that is their failure and there is a way to handle it. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright) spoke of children's fingers being broken and of blood being drawn. No one who has had the experience of having to administer reasonable corporal punishment, as I have, would condone such treatment for a moment. It is disgraceful and unacceptable, and it is no part of my case when I say that corporal punishment should be retained. I am referring to reasonable corporal punishment administered by the head or deputy head of the school — by someone with experience in the profession, experience in handling children and experience in administering corporal punishment.
The use of emotive words such as "beating", "hitting" and "violence" is not helpful. Corporal punishment should not be seen in those terms. It should be used only for the

most serious of school offences, such as the very severe bullying by a large boy of a small boy, or, in some circumstances, perhaps, a boy attacking a teacher.
It is all very well for hon. Members to pontificate in the House of Commons. We need to put ourselves in King's Cross, Deptford, or many other places, in front of a class of 30 or 40 14-year-olds or in a playground where 1,000 or 1,100 boys, or boys and girls, are doing all the things that they do during recreation. One person may have to control that situation. It would be wrong to take away any sanctions in the teacher's hands. At the same time, any sanction must be used carefully and properly.
7.15 pm
There are schools not far from this House where there is little or no discipline. Children of all ages, primary and secondary, trot about like packs of hounds, doing what they like, totally out of control, cheeking teachers — I could give examples. The situation is very serious. The severe soccer and social violence from which we suffer does not diminish as sanctions in schools diminish. It seems to get worse.
What does the Bible say? In Proverbs we read:
He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.
Perhaps Proverbs goes a little far.
As a schoolboy I received corporal punishment. I have been on both sides of the fence. A teacher should always he positive if he is to be effective. If he is, and if interest can be inspired in the pupils, there will be few disciplinary problems. However, there may always be some. Things can go wrong even in the best of situations, and terrible things can happen outside the classroom.
We must consider every aspect of school life. In my own time as a teacher, I remember quite small boys hitting old women to the floor of their homes and demanding money. Other boys violated animals or beat people up. At the same time, pupils were going to Oxford and Cambridge. In a comprehensive school, there will be those who do very well and there will be those who get into difficulties with the police. We must face that.

Mr. Bell: We listen with great interest to the hon. Gentleman as he draws on his vast experience, but is he not confusing concepts when he relates corporal punishment to acts of violence that are criminal offences?

Mr. Greenway: I am simply giving the background against which a school has to draw its disciplinary lines, and giving one or two examples of what happens every day.
Good teachers have few problems, but we are not dealing only with able teachers. We are dealing with those who find it difficult to teach. Discipline emerges best from good relationships between staff and pupils and among pupils themselves. If relationships are good, there is never any violence. The friendship that people feel for each other enables them to think positively first, and to think of hostile actions only as a very last resort. The encouragement of pupils is absolutely essential and is basic to the well-being of any school. However, there will be bad behaviour in any school. One has only to read "Lord of the Flies" to be reminded of the fallen nature of man. There will be bad behaviour even in the best schools. We must consider what sanctions will be effective.
The school must involve the parents. it must work unremittingly with the parents of the pupil concerned to try to remedy the behavioural difficulties of the child.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I wonder whether my hon. Friend's constituency postbag reflects mine? I find that, by eight to one, parents and pupils are in favour of what two of my constituents described as "capital punishment" in schools. If that is the general view of most parents, is it not arrogant for the Labour party to deny its own members the opportunity to reflect the views of their constituents?

Mr. Greenway: Many people are confused between the terms, capital and corporal punishment. I deplore the Labour party's stand on this. It is mandated by its party conference and to have a Whip on such an issue is disgraceful.
Many a problem in schools is cured by involving the parents. But, if it is not, how else can it be done? Much can be cured by a teacher's disapproval of a child's behaviour. A look of disapproval, a withering glance or an angry word might cure it, but not always. Lines are disgraceful and are bad education. Setting pupils to do mathematics destroys any love of an important discipline. I deplore suspension and expulsion. For that to roll so easily off the tongue of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South and others is for them to miss a crucial point.

Mr. Bright: rose—

Mr. Greenway: I am sorry, I think that I have misrepresented my hon. Friend and I apologise. However, that has certainly come from the tongue of others in this debate.
To suspend or expel a pupil is to put outside the school the very children who must be there. They must be there for their education, however difficult they are. I deplore suspensions and expulsions and I am glad to say that I have never been involved in one. If I had been, I would have regarded myself as a gross failure.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: As the hon. Gentleman is taking us through all the possible punishments, will he tell us what, in his experience, people do when a pupil refuses to accept corporal punishment?

Mr. Greenway: The hon. Gentleman anticipates my point. In the end something must happen. In many cases children are put into court. If corporal punishment is abolished, there will be more suspensions, more expulsions and more court cases. I have known children put in court for stealing 10p. That is what the Labour party seems to want. It is disappointing and deplorable.
At the end of the road the administration of reasonable corporal punishment can end serious indiscipline. I am not saying that it is a cure, but it can bring things to a head and stop serious indiscipline in a pupil. It is reasonable to argue that corporal punishment is a deterrent.
On the continent the policy is to expel and suspend. That is a way of putting pupils out of school and it cannot be right. It is asked why we cannot be on our own in retaining corporal punishment. We were on our own in 1940. I do not see why we should be afraid of individuality. Should we do what Sweden does? Sweden is the only country in the world at present where five-year-old children can take their parents to court for smacking them. The Labour party is trying to take us that way. It appears to wish to see children aged five and upwards take a piece of paper home which explains to them that if their parents smack them they are to report them to the nearest police station were a summons will be taken out. The country must take note of that.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is easy to make facile judgments on this issue, but, as a matter of experience, many good and happy schools happen to have corporal punishment and many throroughly bad schools do not? Therefore, surely it is right that the judgment in these matters should be left to the head teachers, the educationists and the people in the schools who know best. Surely that is what the amendment is seeking to do?

Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend is right. His long experience gives added weight to what he says.
If we abolish official and properly supervised corporal punishment there will be more unofficial beating. In schools where corporal punishment has been abolished there have been the most awful goings on which a re undetected—the gym slipper, and so on.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: How do we know if they are undetected?

Mr. Greenway: The hon. Gentleman thinks that he has made a clever remark. He has been to school, as I have. Such things may be undetected in schools, but they can still be reported outside. I am talking of what happens in school.
Children can and do, as the hon. Gentleman has said, refuse all punishment. But in the end something must happen. It is reasonable to have corporal punishment as a backstop. It is fair between pupils. It is immediate and salutary and it can be right for certain serious offences. However, I do not advocate its blanket use for anything and everything.
School discipline cannot be decided at Strasbourg or Westminster, at county hall or town hall. It must be decided where it can be most fruitfully discussed, and that is at the school, between the head, the governors and the parents.

Mr. Harry Ewing: If I do not recognise the problems on which the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) has been enlightening the House, it is because the problems simply do not exist in Scottish schools where, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said, corporal punishment has been abolished for a considerable number of years.
It is a great pity that Conservative Members, with the sort of experience on which the hon. Member for Ealing, North, a schoolteacher for 23 years, has just drawn, have not taken the trouble to see what has happened in Scottish schools since the almost complete abolition of corporal punishment there.
It was a pity that in moving the amendment the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) did not refer to amendment No. 165 which deals not with the position in schools in England and Wales but exclusively with the position in Scotland. Of course, the position there is completely different from that which prevails in England and Wales.
For example, Scotland does not have school governors. We have school councils, but the responsible authorities for schools in Scotland are the regional and islands authorities. In their role as education authorities they had before the European court judgment, the right to decide whether corporal punishment should be used in schools.
I have been close to the problem. The case that was taken to the European Court in 1982 involved a young boy


from my native town of Cowdenbeath. His parents took the case to the court. I lived for about 25 years within walking distance of the factory that made the famous Lochgelly tawse. Therefore, I have been fairly near to the problem for a considerable time.
One of the reasons for abolishing corporal punishment in Scotland all those years ago was that the education authorities were much more enlightened in their approach than the House of Commons now seems to be in 1986.
Excluding those hon. Members who have had experience as schoolteachers, the House of Commons is at its worst when it is moralising. I am looking particularly now at the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels). I hope that we shall not be given a lesson on morals by him.
As Members of Parliament with young families, we come here from Monday to Friday and have little or no responsibility for bringing up our families. We depend almost entirely on our wives to bring up our children. Then we try to act like experts and say what should be done to control indiscipline among children in or out of school.
I hope that when right hon. and hon. Members contribute to the debate they will pay attention to our circumstances as Members of Parliament over the years. When I came here, my family was young; I had to depend almost entirely on my wife and I would not pretend to be an expert in dealing with the problems of indiscipline among young children. I have been away from home from Monday to Friday for nearly sixteen years. That is the sort of factor that we ought to take into account.
Amendment number 165 would return the Scottish education authorities to the position that prevailed before the European Court judgment arising from the 1982 case. The Scottish education authorities would have the discretion whether to apply corporal punishment in schools. I submit that they have used their discretion over a great many years, and that has meant the abolition of corporal punishment. That is a clear sign that they have no need to return to the pre-European Court judgment.
7.30 pm
I do not know whether the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) intends to seek to catch your eye again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to reply to the debate—

Mr. Pawsey: indicated assent.

Mr. Ewing: I note that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth is nodding his head. I hope that he will take my point on board.
I accept that the hon. Member for Enfield, North and others are in favour of corporal punishment. I accept that they are sincere and I do not complain about their sincerity. However, I profoundly disagree with their views. I recognise that the main thrust of their argument is: if we remove corporal punishment, what shall we put in its place? No one can come up with a hard and fast package to replace corporal punishment and guarantee that it would work. No one, including the hon. Member for Enfield, North, can prove that corporal punishment works effectively to control indiscipline in schools.
If we are to remove the system we must accept that we should try various remedies to deal with unruliness in schools. We must also accept that some of these will fail. What is wrong with trying and failing? By trying, we might

find a remedy that will succeed. However the biggest obstacle to trying a new approach is the retention of the old system. As long as we retain corporal punishment in schools—the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth made this point concisely—with the cane standing in the corner to frighten the life out of a child, we shall not make progress. The cane on the table does not and will not work. As long as we retain the cane in the corner, there will be less of an incentive to try to find new approaches, remedies and cures. We shall not find the new approaches without removing the threat of corporal punishment.
I have not been convinced that the need for corporal punishment arises as a result of an unruly child or through an inadequate teacher. There is a fine line between these two factors. I do not believe for a minute that we should disregard the possibility that the problem is not so much about unruly children as about inadequate teaching.

Mr. William Cash: How would the hon. Gentleman equate his remarks with the degree of violence that we have all read about against teachers and the sheer terror to which some teachers have been subjected by children?

Mr. Ewing: I do not think that it does any good to overstate the problem. I have acknowledged that the probem exists. However, it is pointless for the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) to use such emotive language in stating the problem that he presented to me in his intervention. His emotive language implies that such violence is almost a daily occurrence in almost every school in the country.
I trust that the hon. Member for Stafford will bear with me. This is an opportune moment for me to deal with one of the points raised by the hon. Member for Enfield, North. Pupils who attack teachers will not be controlled by corporal punishment. There must be other remedies and I would be the first to accept that. Those pupils—

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: What kind of remedies?

Mr. Ewing: The hon. Member for Leicester, East thinks that he is being clever by asking about the remedies. I have already said that we shall have to try various remedies and that we must accept that some will fail and some will succeed. As long as we retain corporal punishment, we will be lazy in our approach and will not try the alternatives.

Mr. Greenway: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) for giving way and I remind him that I am the hon. Member for Ealing, North and not Enfield, North. In my experience I remember occasions when teachers have been attacked by pupils and reasonable corporal punishment proved to be the satisfactory form of punishment.

Mr. Radice: The hon. Gentleman cannot prove that.

Mr. Greenway: I most certainly can prove that. It happened in one case at a school for 2,200 pupils in which I had responsibility for school discipline. The House is entitled to ask, what precisely would the hon. Member for Falkirk, East do? It is no good him saying he would do this or that. What would he do?

Mr. Ewing: I apologise to the electorate of Enfield, North and to the hon. Member for Ealing, North. However, the hon. Gentleman wants everything in a nice


package but that is not possible. Corporal punishment does not fit into a nice package. That is why this country is in such difficulty over the question of corporal punishment.
The hon. Member for Ealing, North will discover in the Lobby when the vote is taken, that this is not a Labour party versus Tory party versus alliance issue. There are many opinions on this issue. We have been talking about deterrents. I have been here long enough to know that the three-line Whip is no more a deterrent than the cane standing in the corner. The hon. Member for Ealing, North knows that.
My central point is that the education authorities in Scotland do not want to return to the pre-1982, pre-European Court position. When the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth replies, I hope that he will not press amendment No. 165 and that he will seek leave to withdraw it. It is significant that no Scottish Member of Parliament has supported the amendment. I do not mean that as criticism, it is simply a fact. I do not want to be accused of carping criticism, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment. If he does not, I hope that we shall be allowed a separate vote on amendment No. 165 as we in Scotland do not need to return to the pre-European Court position.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I shall be very brief as I know that many hon. Members wish to intervene in the debate. Left entirely to myself, and if we were not concerned with the European Court, I would substantially agree with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). I believe that corporal punishment in England, as possibly the punishment of last resort, should be determined by the governing bodies of individual schools. I would like that to be the position. However, I do not think that it can be the position and I do not believe that the House or any sensible person can ignore the decision of the European Court.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: rose—

Mr. Hogg: The decision of the European Court has made it clear that, unless we respect what are called the philosophical views of parents, we are in breach of the convention. That leaves us with two choices. Either we have a policy of complete abolition as contained in the Bill or we have a system designed to enable parents to elect that their children should not be punished in that way.
The Education (Corporal Punishment) Bill 1985 was an attempt to enable parents to opt their children out of punishment. I served on the Standing Committee on that Bill and with the greatest respect to the then Secretary of State, I believe that it was nonsense. There cannot be two classes of punishment in one school. I conclude, therefore, that to discharge what is a duty to the convention, the treaty and the accord, we must pursue a policy of total abolition.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North says that these matters should be left to the governing bodies. In principle, I am in favour of that policy, but I do not see how governing bodies can achieve that objective and at the same time comply with the European convention and the European Court's ruling without providing some form of dual discipline within the schools, and that is not acceptable.

Mr. Budgen: My hon. Friend knows that I agree with much of what he says, but for those of us who wish to be rid of this foreign interference and who wish to ensure that the British people have the right to make these decisions, for better or for worse, is there not something to be said for voting for a nonsense, in the hope that the British people will realise that a nonsense has been foisted upon them and that it is far better that domestic matters should be decided by this House?

Mr. Hogg: I am never in favour of voting for nonsenses, and I should be sorry to think that my hon. Friend is in favour of voting for nonsenses. Perhaps this demonstrates that the European convention ought to be incorporated in our municipal and domestic law, when British judges would decide the issue and I suspect, would come to a quite different decision. However, today we are deciding whether on the one hand to pursue a policy of complete abolition or, on the other hand, to devise a system that will enable parents to elect whether or not their children should be punished in this way. As that would lead to a dual kind of discipline in schools, which would be a nonsense, I favour the policy of complete abolition.

Mr. Flannery: It is very sad that we are spending all this time discussing one aspect of an 81-page Bill containing 61 clauses and six schedules. It is the biggest Bill since the Education Act 1944. We are devoting all this time to discussing something that was decided as long as 100 years ago in certain European countries. I have served with the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) on many Committees, including the bizarre one last year which considered corporal punishment. It is unbelievable that any party could put forward such nonsense.
The hon. Member for Ealing, North referred to bad practice. There would be no bad practie if corporal punishment were made illegal. I taught for far longer than the hon. Gentleman did but he knows as well as I do that one blow in anger always begets another and that it often gets out of hand. The number of cases that have got out of hand would fill the newspapers. We do not come across many of these cases personally. Indeed, I have come across only one or two of them. What the hon. Gentleman calls bad practice is the actual practice of corporal punisnment.
Teachers have to try to create a relaxed atmosphere, as best they can. In such an atmosphere, children have their senses wide open to knowledge and to the channels of learning. It is not always in the head teacher's room that caning takes place. Although I have not taught for 12 or 13 years, I know that caning usually takes place in the classroom, in front of other children, and that it is not recorded.

Mr. Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the House decided tonight to abolish caning it is unlikely that corporal punishment would be reintroduced and that it would decide the matter for generations to come?

Mr. Flannery: Indeed. I am sure that that is what would happen, and that is what most Opposition Members, whether whipped or not, would like to happen. Earlier in these proceedings it saddened me to note that the Government Benches were quite empty, compared with now. As soon as the amendment dealing with corporal punishment was moved, the Government Benches filled up.
A relaxed school atmosphere means that learning goes on at a faster rate than happens if children are frightened. Many sensitive children are terrified when they see a weapon—a cane—being wielded. Conservative Members may smile, but many of them stand alone on this issue. The hon. Member for Ealing, North referred to this country being as embattled as it was in 1940, during the Dunkirk operation, but thousands of teachers are against corporal punishment.

Mr. Greenway: The hon. Gentleman was not paying attention. All I said was that we should not fear to stand alone on this issue and to be the only nation in Europe that administers corporal punishment. We stood alone in 1940 on a quite separate issue. I was not drawing an analogy between then and now.

Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman's interventions are always welcome. They spur me on in following the line that I correctly take.
The lengths to which certain Conservative Members have to go to justify this barbaric practice are unbelievable. They are driven from position to position, and their arguments become more and more bizarre. Eventually, they end up with what happened last year—a Bill that said to parents, "If you sign a document saying that we must not cane your Tommy we will not cane him, no matter what he does, but if you sign another document saying that we can cane him, we will cane him." Tommy and Billy then do the same thing, and the teacher says to Tommy and Billy, "By the way, did your mums sign a document saying that I could cane you, or did they say that I could not cane you?" What nonsense. This wrong and backward argument drives one to resort to all kinds of measures in an effort to justify something that is outdated.

Mr. Budgen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Flannery: Other hon. Members want to speak. I know the hon. Gentleman's viewpoint. He has voiced it very often.
It is necessary to examine not only the question of teaching and learning, but the question of human dignity. The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) was ready to get the sjambok out for all of us if we disagreed with him over corporal punishment. I have no doubt that he would have done that in Soweto. Corporal punishment demeans the teacher and the taught. It demeans the society in which it occurs and closes the channels of learning.

Mr. David Evennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Flannery: I will in a moment. The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) was a member of the Committee on the Bill. Now he is on the Select Committee, and I know that he has a good viewpoint, although I do not think that he agrees with me on this. People who use the expression in loco parentis, meaning in place of a parent, are really talking in loco draconis. They are talking as Draco and frightening children, and making teaching and learning extremely difficult.

Mr. Evennett: I am always interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's point of view, because he had years of experience in the classroom. Those of us who have been teachers have all had experience of the playground bully.

Does the hon. Gentleman not think that the playground bully might benefit from corporal punishment and that other children in the playground might be deterred from bullying if they knew that the outcome could be a touch of the cane from the headmaster? Does he not think that in an instance like that there is a case for corporal punishment?

Mr. Flannery: No, there is no case for corporal punishment in dealing with a playground bully, though I agree that we have to think carefully about how to deal with that problem. Later I shall come to the vexed question of what ought to replace corporal punishment. This form of punishment is far less acceptable than a wide range of alternative sanctions that are available. Many people would disagree with some of them, but the teachers organisations have issued pamphlets about this and in essence they ask for smaller classes, more resources, more teachers, better schools and more equipment — for all the things that mean more learning and more teaching. They are difficult things to provide because they are expensive, but they are the replacements for corporal punishment.
There always have been and always will be awkward children. The hon. Member for Ealing, North talked about attacks on teachers. It has been proved that where corporal punishment ceases, attacks on teachers decrease. The Inner London education authority conducted some research into this which showed that when the cane was banned attacks on teachers dropped. The director of education in Brent reported that the abolition of corporal punishment led to a decrease in bullying in the borough's schools.
There are solutions to this difficult problem. Some of the solutions and some of the problems have been discussed endlessly, not only by us, but by the teachers, who have to discuss them in the staffrooms and in other places where they get together. The Government propose to leave the initiative to parents whether or not children should be caned, but by doing that the Government are not facing their responsibilities. The responsibilities have to be faced in teaching, and the idea that one can have some schools in which the governors decide to have corporal punishment and others where the governors decide not to have it is unworkable. It is as bizarre as last year's Bill.
I think that a few Government Members support the stance that we are taking, and I hope they will realise that not only is corporal punishment a lonely business and wrong, but that it is not good for teaching. They should face the real alternative, which is more money for education.

Mr. Key: My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) and I spend many hours talking about education. We agree on most things but on some things we disagree. I always find it fascinating to discuss such things with my hon. Friend against the background of the memory of Arnold of Rugby, that great educational reformer who did so much for education in Britain in the last century.
Caning has failed. It is an irony that in recent years when caning has been legal we have seen the most rapid ever deterioration in discipline and a growth of violence. It is turning the argument on its head to say that we must keep the cane in order to impose discipline and see an end


to violence. I fear that many of my hon. Friends wish to perpetuate a system which 40 years on they claim did them no harm and which many of them preferred as a punishment in their young days. Of course they preferred it: it was far easier and more acceptable than other sanctions which they might have had inflicted on them. It was much preferable to loss of privileges, loss of status and loss of time at school. Indeed, it would have added to their status as heroes against authority. The sensitive ones among my hon. Friends — probably at their public schools — were humiliated. The tougher ones were beaten again and again, to the enhancement of their Rambo reputations.
Ever since judicial flogging was outlawed in Britain in 1948, the evidence has been growing, and is now irrefutable, that corporal punishment is counterproductive because it breeds hostility and resentment and legitimises violence at a time when we are urgently trying to reduce violence in society.
Parents expect rules and sanctions in other professions, such as the law, banking and medicine, to change and improve with the years, but some people seem to think that this should not be so in education, especially when it comes to beating. It is hard to find a single public school where the cane is still in use and any headmaster or master, will testify that the quality of human relationships between people of all ages in those schools has seen an enormous advance on days gone by.

Mr. Cash: I think that for some time my hon. Friend was a teacher at Harrow school. At least one other signatory to new clause 20 was a contemporary of his at Harrow school as a master. He has signed the motion in favour of corporal punishment. Can my hon. Friend enlighten me about the position that he and that other hon. Member took?

Mr. Key: I take it that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (M r. Cash) is talking about our hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter). Neither of us was allowed to beat children and children were very rarely beaten. Just yesterday I talked to the headmaster of Harrow school and he confirmed that beating is not part of the curriculum there. It is in the schools in Britain where the cane was outlawed many years ago that we have the most successful academic results and motivation of the pupils. There are a number of alternative sanctions which can be used.

Mr. Evennett: rose—

Mr. Key: I must proceed, or I shall detain the House for a long time.
The quality of humen relationships which develop in school when the cane is not just put in the cupboard but snapped and burned and the advance that one sees in those schools are so great that those things alone would be enough to convince me that we should abolish the cane.
Some of my hon. Friends have said that the issue of corporal punishment should be left for schools to decide. The matter cannot possibly be left to schools, because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education has made it clear that if corporal punishment is retained, one way or another schools will be forced to allow parents to exempt their children from it. That will create two classes of pupils, the beatable and the unbeatable. In a way, the choice facing the House is which policy to impose on schools—abolition or the ludicrous exemption scheme.
Some of my hon. Friends have also spoken aout the serious problem of assaults on teachers. Figures collected by education authorities show that since certain authorities abolished corporal punishment in their schools, there has been a measurable decline in the number of recorded assaults on teachers. For instance, in 1978 in ILEA, there were 62 recorded instances of assaults on teachers. The following year, the authority announced that it would work towards the abolition of corporal punishment in 1981. That was a transition time of three years in which schools could adapt to the new disciplinary procedures. From 1979, annual figures for assaults fell, and there was a drop of nearly 40 per cent. between 1978 and 1981. The schools that abolished corporal punishment included both those schools at which my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North taught.
8 pm
I have also heard it said that the abolition of corporal punishment would lead to more pupils being suspended. The evidence points in exactly the opposite direction. Because teacher-pupil relationships are better in the absence of corporal punishment, fewer pupils are suspended than otherwise would be. This is not conjecture. For instance, the level of suspension has fallen in Birmingham, in Haringey—

Mr. Radice: In Northamptonshire.

Mr. Key: —in Waltham Forest, and, as the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) has said, in Northamptonshire. In 1984, its education committee reported:
if any conclusion is to be drawn from these statistics it is that the abolition of corporal punishment gradually, and now as a matter of policy, has had the effect of reducing, rather than increasing, the number of suspensions.
It is also said that corporal punishment should be retained because it is used only infrequently, as a last resort, or as the ultimate deterrent for serious offences. This is nonsense. Both official education authority statistics and inspectorate reports have shown that in some schools there are hundreds of canings a year. Many cif these must be for trivial offences. This was admitted by the Government in the 1985 White Paper "Better Schools", which acknowledged that corporal punishment
is in many schools used only for relatively minor offences.
As long as corporal punishment is legal in some schools, it will continue to be used extremely frequently.

Mr. Pawsey: I have no desire to provoke my hon. Friend into the long speech with which he has threatened us, but does he not agree that the schools to which he referred are a small minority? Does he also agree that, increasingly, corporal punishment is being used more infrequently every year?

Mr. Key: I wish that I could agree with my hon. Friend, but the facts do not support what he is saying. He has encouraged me to insert a huge chunk into my speech of numerous examples of exactly what I mean.
Corporal punishment is still widespread and often frequent. It has been abolished by 34 of our 125 education authorities, and is retained by 91. I am delighted that my county education authority in Wiltshire has recently seen the light. The abolitionist authorities include those of all types across the country, whether they are county councils, London boroughs, Welsh county councils or Scottish


regional councils. They are diverse politically, and include Conservative-controlled Berkshire and alliance-controlled Richmond.
I find disturbing the rules in the retentionist authorities. Some 84 allow corporal punishment for primary school children, 87 allow it for sixth formers, 77 allow it for handicapped children. Some 86 place no limit on the number of blows allowed, 80 allow corporal punishment to be carried out in public, 60 allow male teachers to give corporal punishment to girls and 89 allow female teachers to give corporal punishment to boys. It is an interesting concept that it is more acceptable to allow women to beat boys than to allow men to beat girls. Let us not go too far down that intriguing road.
Local authority bans protect about 3 million schoolchildren from corporal punishment, roughly one third of our school population. In Scotland, over 90 per cent. of the school population is safe from corporal punishment.
Maintained schools in England and Wales keep punishment books. These have been referred to, but generally without statistics, so I feel obliged to put the statistics in front of my hon. Friends so that they can judge them. Some 35 of the 104 English and Welsh LEAs have published statistics from these books. They show that in many areas, corporal punishment in schools is still frequent. Extrapolating nationally from the published figures suggests that there are about 200,000 officially recorded instances of corporal punishment each year.
For instance, in Mid Glamorgan there were 9,994 recorded instances in secondary schools in 1979–81, and 516 in primary schools. In Cleveland, 12,369 were recorded in secondary schools from September 1980 to May 1983. In one comprehensive, Dyke House comprehensive in Cleveland, 1,260 canings were recorded between September 1980 and May 1983. [Interruption.] I would be grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North would listen to me. I had the courtesy to listen to him in silence.

Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend is only reading from the STOPP brief.

Mr. Key: The STOPP organisation has the finest statistics available to prove the point that I am trying to make, so of course I shall quote it. I shall quote it even more if I am encouraged in this way.

Mr. Greenway: Make your own speech.

Mr. Key: I shall be making my speech at greater length unless my hon. Friend does me the courtesy of listening to me.
One could go on quoting examples, but certain themes emerge from the statistics that are unpalatable to my hon. Friends. First, there is a tremendous variation from education authority to education authority. Secondly, some children get corporal punishment again and again. The Cleveland figures show that two boys were caned 25 times in one year and another 24 times in the following year. Thirdly, children of all ages are liable to corporal punishment. The sad fact is that even physically and mentally handicapped children are subject to this. We have seen that the corporal punishment of girls is practised, but is less common, although by no means rare.
I referred earlier to judicial corporal punishment, which was abolished in 1948 because the Cadogan report of 1938, after a thorough study of young offenders, concluded that those who were birched were more likley to re-offend than those who were not. It said:
as a court penalty, corporal punishment is not an effective method of dealing with young offenders.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Mr. Key: No, I shall not give way. I have already given way many times.
Flogging in the Army was banned in 1906, but was not finally outlawed in the Navy until 1957. Corporal punishment in borstals and prisons was banned in 1967. We should not beat convicted criminals, but innocent children are fair game.
The campaign to persuade Parliament to end corporal punishment in schools began in 1669, when a schoolboy presented Mr. Speaker with the Children's Petition.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: My hon. Friend said that corporal punishment does not deter. On one occasion when I was appearing in court, two probation officers were discussing that point. One of them said that his defendant was from the Isle of Man, where he had been birched, but he was in court again. The young man said from the corner, "But I wouldn't do it again in the Isle of Man."

Mr. Key: That may be so, but unfortunately for my hon. Friend, birching has been abolished in the Isle of Man. I am surprised that she is advocating the use of the birch. That is going a bit far, even for some of my hon. Friends.
The campaign to persuade Parliament to end corporal punishment to schools began in 1669 with the Children's Petition, which suggests that a teacher who
is not able to awe and keep a company of youth in obedience without violence and stripes should judge himself no more fit for that function.
Times have not changed in that respect. Beating is a dangerous form of punishment, which is not even successful as a means of discipline. We have seen that corporal punishment is counter-productive. Schools which use the cane have the worst classroom misbehaviour, the highest juvenile delinquency, the most vandalism and the worst attendance rates. The cane breeds resentment and fosters hostile teacher-pupil relationships and a negative and antagonistic atmosphere in schools.
None of the education authorities which banned corporal punishment has been forced to reintroduce it. The practical experience of doing without it in Britain and overseas makes it clear that corporal punishment is not only undesirable but unnecessary.
As a Conservative, I believe in levelling up. Few of my colleagues would disagree that the highest educational standards, the strongest motivation and the best discipline are still to be found in traditional schools, which they probably attended. Those schools have, almost without exception, ceased to use the cane. The parliamentary victims of the cane who say that no harm was done to them were lucky, because beating causes physical and mental damage to a significant minority. Of course, as I said earlier, they preferred it.
The last ditch argument is always: what, in the face of increasing indiscipline, can be put in place of the cane? During my 16 years' experience of teaching, without exception, the best headmasters, housemasters and


teachers used punishment least and the inadequate indulged in it. Any teacher worth his or her salt will say that good discipline results from a host of complex, interacting factors and is not achieved by the simplistic hitting of a child with a stick. It is no good saying that we must get away from emotional language and that we must stop talking about beating, flogging or hitting children with sticks. I have heard several hon. Members talking about a sharp tap on the bottom as a euphemism for corporal punishment. We cannot quibble about the delivery of that punishment.
A rich harvest of alternatives to corporal punishment has been gleaned. I pay tributue to David Fontana, the senior lecturer at University college, Cardiff for stating the best practice for teachers in his book "Classroom Control". The book encapsulates the best practice of all those, perhaps good, schoolmasters who taught Tory Back-Bench Members all those years ago—those hon. Members who ask constantly what can be put in place of the cane. I refer them to that book. I even refer my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster to it. I wish that she would read it and discover the alternatives to corporal punishment. The book encapsulates the best teaching practice.
What is that best practice? It means good schools, where rules are few but are clear and are consistently applied. It means rules that are subject to change and development and a school with clear and efficient lines of communications between pupils and teachers at all levels and between the staff. It also means decisions which are taken by the head and staff in a way which is never arbitrary but is related to the need for children to learn standards and values. Such a school will have a positive purpose which is sensitive to all the ability-related differences between the children and to cultural factors.
If the small print of the problems facing us bores my hon. Friends, I must say that frequently many of them say, "What will you put in its place?" We must put those measures in the place of corporal punishment. If something is to be put in the place of corporal punishment, it is the teachers who will do it and it is their experience and good will upon which we must, to a large extent, rely.
Most punishment arouses negative feelings in a child and usually draws attention to bad behaviour. Praise and encouragement are accepted and practised by parents and teachers. Teachers may add material rewards such as good marks, term reports, house points, privileges and special responsibilities, all of which are immediate, realistic, consistent and attractive to children. The withdrawal of those privileges and the denial of time are among the most effective sanctions available to a teacher. The ridiculous fantasies creeping into our schools, such as the abandonment of egg-and-spoon races and the absurdity of denigrating football as a sport and calling it an invasion game, do nothing to help discipline any more than the abandoning of school uniform.
8.15 pm
As ex-pupils and as parents, hon. Members know that teachers should be confident, careful, consistent, fair, aware and firm. They should set realistic standards and should, above all, enjoy teaching. Sarcasm and humiliation in the classroom elicit nothing but rudeness and disobedience. If we wish our teachers to carry prestige and status and deliver to our children their educational birthright, we must look to the ACAS talks now in

progress to set us on the road beyond the tragic dispute that we have experienced, and to the Secretary of State to implement the new partnership envisaged by the Bill, which I warmly congratulate the Government on introducing.

Mrs. Elizabeth Shields: I agree with the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). I, like many other hon. Members, have been in the teaching profession, and I may have a little more experience than some. During the past 10 years I have taught in a mixed comprehensive school. During that period the use of the cane, which was never frequent, has become even less frequent. There are alternative ways of correcting children. There are no complete answers to the problems set by disruptive children. We must work those things out as we go along. There are positive ways of considering the problem but corporal punishment is a negative way, as it tends to breed resentment.
If one uses suspension, there is a cooling-off period. A child who is out of school for three or five days gets bored and wishes to return to the school environment, because he has been away from his friends. That is much preferable to, and more positive than, corporal punishment.
Many in the teaching profession, and most of the unions, now believe that corporal punishment should be phased out, on the ground that it is ineffectual and does not produce the results claimed. To retain it on a voluntary basis would create an almost impossible position in many schools. It would be divisive, in that different pupils would be punished differently for the same offence.
I wonder whether those hon. Members who are in favour of corporal punishment would he willing to accept it if you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or Mr. Speaker, were to decide that you could inflict it when the House is noisy and when hon. Members are not listening to the Opposition.

Mr. Fred Silvester: I did not wish to intervene but there is one argument to which I feel I must draw attention. The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mrs. Shields) said that the school in which she had taught had corporal punishment, but that its use had diminished, and that she foresaw a time when it would be phased out. I do not disagree with that general approach, but it seems that the people involved in education must make decisions for themselves.
I would prefer, and I intend to vote on this basis, that schools should decide for themselves in conjunction with the governors. However, I do not wish to argue that point tonight as much passion has been devoted to it arid the arguments made on both sides of the House have gone over the top.
There is freedom of manoeuvre in this House and it is wrong for hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), who unfortunately is not in his place, to suggest that we are constrained by the European Court of Human Rights. We are neither legally for morally obliged to make this change tonight. I say that as, I think, the only Conservative Member to vote against the last Education Bill, because it is nonsense. I do not take the view adopted by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), which is that the more nonsense we vote for, the better. On the whole it is better to vote against it if possible.
I have often made my next point, and I know that it is a failing cause, although it should be put on the record.


The treaty that gives authority to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has never been debated or voted upon in the House. Therefore, there is no moral obligation on this Parliament. It happens that because the original derived from a treaty, it passes through the House under the Ponsonby rules, and was therefore not subject to debate. All Governments have failed to bring this matter to the House, even though they have an opportunity to do so everyfive years when the right to make private petitions to the court is brought up for renewal.
Thus there is no moral obligation, although the question whether there is a legal obligation is more complex. I shall outline what I believe to be the position. The Government have entered into a treaty. They are undoubtedly bound by the decisions of the court. However, this Parliament cannot be bound by the court's decisions. It remains a sovereign Parliament and can pass what laws it pleases. The Government come to Parliament to put the case for a change in the law so that they are not embarrassed by cases that go before the court. Thus, we are talking about the Government's embarrassment, and it is not up to this Parliament to bail them out unless the Government come to us with a proposition that we can accept in its own right. So far, the Government have not come to us with such a proposition.
As has been pointed out, the Government came to us with a ludicrous proposition. On that occasion, many of my hon. Friends thought it appropriate to vote for that nonsense, although I did not. I do not propose to vote for this nonsense either. If the European Court of Human Rights believes that a person who has a philosophical objection to having his child beaten should be protected, why, as is the case in my constituency, do 80 per cent. or more of the parents involved in some schools believe that it is to their children's advantage to be brought up in the disciplined atmosphere of a school that still has that sanction, and why should they not be able to have that right exercised?
The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) keeps saying that I am talking about the impossible. But if he is anxious to reconcile the decision of the European Court of Human Rights, there is one clear and obvious solution. If the schools are left to decide for themselves, parents can choose which school to send their children to. The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mrs. Shields) would no doubt say that fewer and fewer schools would retain corporal punishment. Indeed, if the argument is convincing, more and more parents would choose to send their children to schools that did not have corporal punishment.

Mr. Budgen: What would happen if a parent sent his child to a school and then changed his mind just before the child was about to be beaten? If the child was beaten, the parent might go off to the European Court of Human Rights on the basis that his right not to have his child beaten had been infringed by the school and that the British Government had, in effect, reneged on an order from the European Court of Human Rights.

Mr. Silvester: My hon. Friend has made his reputation in the House by thinking up extreme examples in order to ridicule Bills. Indeed, he is fairly good at it. But I do not for a moment believe that any court would regard that as

responsible behaviour by a citizen who had been given the opportunity to choose his school. I think that my hon. Friend understands that point.
My hon. Friends may believe and vote as they wish on this matter, but there is no constraint on them to take one decision or another as a result of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: In trying to avoid what others have described as the mess of previous legislation and of attempts to deal with this issue, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) suggested that responsibility should lie with the parents and that there should be absolute parental choice. In other words, he believes that parents should be able to choose between a school that inflicts corporal punishment and one that does not.

Mr. Silvester: I was talking about the parents, governors and teachers who are responsible for a particular school.

Mr. Fatchett: I accept that intervention, although it rather changes the hon. Gentleman's argument. I was going to say that parental choice would not be absolute in terms of the amendment, or in practice. From our constituency experience we all know that there are substantial constraints on choice, in the form of school catchment areas, school buildings, school sizes, and so on. Consequently parents cannot exercise any absolute choice. I think that it was the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) who said that we had two choices: to go for absolute abolition, or to allow parents to exercise their philosophical right to allow their children to opt out of corporal punishment. The hon. Member for Grantham then said that that was an unacceptable approach, because it would involve two classes of children and two classes of punishment. That strong .argument has yet to be answered.
I am also worried about the possible damage to the relationship between a parent and his child. If parents are to be able to choose whether their child should receive corporal punishment in certain circumstances — I shall not use emotive language such as "I want my child to be beaten"—a dangerous wedge may be driven between them and their child. Might not a child say to his parents that other children do not have to suffer corporal punishment? I hope that the House will take the clear line outlined by the hon. Member for Grantham and that it will go for total abolition.
I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). In Committee, I listened on occasions when he was allowed to make some interesting interventions. I did not always agree with him, but tonight I almost totally agreed with him. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) turned round and said that we would only disagree with him in his passing references to the value of this Bill. We may fundamentally disagree on that point, but there is much agreement between us on the issue of corporal punishment.
However, I was disappointed by the reception that Conservative Members gave the hon. Gentleman's speech. It is a commentary on the modern Conservative party that it cannot listen to debate without constant comment or childish behaviour. The hon. Gentleman made a powerful case, and I hope that those who speak in favour of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Rugby and


Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) or, indeed, the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth himself, will answer some of his points. As yet, no hon. Member has done so. I shall list the arguments, and I hope that those who speak in this debate will try to meet them.
For instance, why do we reserve corporal punishment only for the young? What justification is there for that? That point has not been answered. Why is there evidence that in schools where there are high levels of corporal punishment, there is also evidence of increasing unruly and antisocial behaviour? No one has answered that point. The hon. Member for Salisbury made that argument effectively. No one has answered the point that when corporal punishment has been abolished, there is no deterioration in behaviour and discipline. Often there is the opposite, in that there is an improvement as there is a better atmosphere.
8.30 pm
In the debate no one has answered the argument that there is a substantial difference between schools that have corporal punishment and schools that do not. If the evidence suggests any difference, it is that schools that do not have corporal punishment have the better atmosphere and behaviour, and the better disciplinary record. I look forward to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) dealing with those points. No one has said why no individual local authority that has decided to abandon corporal punishment has gone back on that decision. No one has told us why that is a historical fact. I suspect that the reason is that, when local authorities take that decision, they recognise that it is right and stick by it. During the debate, I should like to hear answers to those arguments, which have not yet been given.
Three basic arguments have been put forward for retaining corporal punishment. First, there is the ear-clipping analogy, that it is a good idea to be clipped round the ear by one's parents, the local bobby or perhaps occasionally the teacher. That is good for the child. It teaches him right from wrong, and is a beneficial process. That is used as a basis for saying that we need corporal punishment, and has been used in the debate.
Even if one subscribes to the notion that the ear clip is a good thing in itself I am not wholly of that persuasion—there is a substantial difference between an ear clip and the process of corporal punishment. The clipping of an ear by a parent is a spontaneous reaction — an understandable reaction in many circumstances. The process of corporal punishment is a deliberate act of violence to achieve certain objectives and ends. One cannot put the argument on the basis of the ear clipping analogy. One must recognise that when one goes for deliberate violence, it has its own culture and atmosphere, and one must consider the implications. My argument is that when one creates that culture and atmosphere, one creates a set of reactions against it, which are not necessarily beneficial for our society.
The second argument is that we do not need the cane; it is just a deterrent. I have heard the deterrent argument in other contexts. There is a point in that argument when one has to say that if the weapon is a deterrent, one is prepared to use it. Then the argument shifts its ground because the weapon is no longer a deterrent—the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) used this expression — but it becomes a symbol of fear in the classroom. It is a way of frightening young people.
I have a very different view of education and the educational processes from those that are based upon fear. There is something wrong with our society, our education and our teaching profession if the only way in which we can provide education and learning is on the basis of fear. All the available evidence shows that if we can provide a different atmosphere in which people learn from each other and with each other, we shall get much better results. I do not believe for a moment that one can educate through fear; one can educate only through challenge, initiative and opportunity. Fear is not the basis upon which one enhances people's view of the world and their willingness to learn.
That argument falls, as does the third, which is simple. Those who want to retain corporal punishment simply say, "What is the alternative? We have run out of arguments and ideas, so we'll throw the ball into your court." That cry for an alternative has come from those who have spoken in favour of corporal punishment tonight. It is incumbent upon those who want to change the Bill as it stands to come forward with some arguments. The —What is the alternative?" argument is a negative but easy argument because the cane is the non-thinking, easy response that says, "It has always happened, so it must always happen." I do not believe that that is the right response.
The hon. Member for Salisbury gave a series of constructive suggestions. I make just two points. First, if we want teachers to do a job in our classrooms, we have to train them and provide resources for them to do it. We shall not overcome the problems that teachers face in relation to individual pupils simply by not providing the resources. We shall not overcome those problems by providing the cane. Teachers need to be trained to do the job.
Secondly, there is no easy answer. Resources will often be needed to deal with those of our children who are difficult to educate, but certain local authorities and schools, and many teachers, have experimented successfully in that direction. I say to those who simply parrot the words "What is the alternative?": go around the country, take a deep interest in education, look at what our educationists have done, and you will find the alternative. It is much more civilised, humane and effective for individual children.
In introducing the amendment, the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth spent a few moments knocking the other place. I hope that he continues to do that throughout what may be a relatively short political career, because there will be some consistency if he does. What he wanted to do in that knockabout opening session was show the House that he had an argument. The reality of his speech was that he had no argument. It was a threadbare speech.
I hope that the House has the courage tonight to say that we do not deal with the problems of our society by falling back on deliberate acts of violence, as are enshrined and embodied in corporal punishment, and to abolish corporal punishment and bring this country, not through legislation, not through the courts, but through the Act of this Parliament, into line with all other countries in western Europe. That will be the civilised way and a great improvement for our education system.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I am pleased to be associated with my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) in this excellent amendment. Tonight the


subject for debate is discipline, or lack of it, in our schools. All that we are trying to do is to rectify the situation where some standards are falling because of lack of discipline, while the good schools are continuing to do extremely well.
My friend the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) said that I was liable to make a moralising speech. I have no regret about doing such a thing, because I believe that we are trying to bring discipline back into our schools. Good discipline in our schools breeds respect. I believe that corporal punishment, when used properly, and properly controlled, can bring that respect, just as good teachers earn respect. Of course one does not want corporal punishment to be used on every occasion. Indeed, teachers who have to use it on every occasion might be considered to have failed, but perhaps it is better to receive corporal punishment than to spend one's life having cold showers, doing 500 lines, going on cross-country runs or facing the ultimate problem of expulsion.
Our children should stay in school for as long as possible, so that they can learn and get a job after having had proper training. If a pupil is expelled the school has failed, but if a child is caned he has a second chance. There is nothing wrong in allowing a child that opportunity. It is a deterrent for children to be caned. I have had the experience of being in both the state and the private sector of education, and both schools had the cane available. Indeed, I think that I am the youngest member to take part in the debate—I did not leave school that many years ago. Without any doubt, it was better for me to be in school than out and about.
It is important to try to improve the standards of discipline in schools. How will corporal punishment be conducted? I believe that it should be conducted in front of the class and under proper control. It should be carried out in front of the class so that they know full well that a certain child is a miscreant. It is a quick way in which to deal with him. The decision to cane the child should be instant, so that he does not have to wait all day, queuing outside the headmaster's door, as we had to.
A record of the use of the cane should be kept so that there is no question of an illegal caning. It is important that the decision on corporal punishment should be made locally. In that way, the governors, the head and the parents are involved in a local decision.
On occasions, a caning can rehabilitate a child extremely quickly. Some people have said that a good whacking has done no one any harm, and I like to think that it has not done me any harm yet. I can remember children going scrumping. In the old days, the local bobby would take them to one side and clip them around the ear, but they did not go before the beak. The children were taken to their parents, who were informed that they had been scrumping. The children received the punishment there and then. That saved court time and, I believe, reduced juvenile crime. We have heard of some of the idiots at universities who have stolen policemen's helmets and cannot become barristers because their record has been blotted for life.
Of the parents whose children attend English-speaking schools, 63 per cent. favour the occasional use of corporal punishment. We are trying to make it available when a local school wants it. I am a governor of a couple of schools, and in one school a girl kicked a teacher in the stomach. I should have thought that that child could be

sorted out at the school, but she has been expelled. Does that succeed? Instant discipline could have been used to control that child and would have ensured that she had a second chance. That is what we are talking about —giving our young children a second chance.
I do not like the idea of cane-free zones, rather like nuclear-free zones, so that one can shop around for a school that does not have the cane. I accept that if we have corporal punishment, some schools will not have it. That is not a retrograde step, because parents can move their children on to schools that have corporal punishment.

Mr. Fatchett: rose—

Mr. Bruinvels: I feel that some parents are copping out and that some are unprepared to discipline their children. They are putting too much responsibility on teachers to discipline their children. That is not the best way. Discipline begins at home, as does respect.
Many hon. Members have referred to the European Court of Human Rights, and it is a big bugbear tonight. We are the United Kingdom, and we do not have to do whatever the European Court tells us. I believe that it would be better if we could forget what the European Court has said. The Isle of Man had the birch until the European Court interfered, and until then the behaviour rate had been considerably better than it is now. There is a British way of doing things, a British tradition, and that is lost if we listen to everything that is said by the European Court.
What is wrong with punishment fitting the crime? We all believe in trying to improve the lot of our fellow people and in making our children better citizens. A good point came out of "Better Schools" which in summary says that schools must secure good order and create positive attitudes towards good behaviour in all that they do. The effectiveness of schools in promoting good behaviour, and more importantly, self discipline, has an effect on wider social problems, such as juvenile crime.
The public expect little Joe or little Jill to behave better than he or she does, and this amendment may ensure that. We have heard a lot of what STOPP has said, and I recognised certain comments that were read out by hon. Friends. I do not believe any child has been physically abused by the cane, and, more important, the use of the cane has not been abused.

Mr. James Hamilton: The hon. Member talks about children not being abused, but if he looks at The Standard for this evening he will see a horrific photograph. I have two daughters in the teaching profession and I represent part of Strathclyde region, which governs more than half the educational population of Scotland. The region has departed from corporal punishment and my daughters have found that to be an effective and successful move.

Mr. Bruinvels: We have already had the photograph in The Standard drawn to our attention tonight. I have read the report, and it is a shocking indictment. There is obviously a sub judice rule, and as we do not have the whole report we should wait and see. If the hon. Gentleman has listened to my speech he will have heard me say that caning must be conducted under proper control, in proper circumstances, and should be properly


recorded. I believe the case reported in The Standard should not have happened, but I believe that it is an isolated one.
We must ensure that the standard of behaviour in our schools is acceptable to society. We must ensure that it is retained as a local decision, and that each head, parent, and governing body can decide on what must be done. There is nothing wrong in giving the head that power to impose discipline. Many head teachers want that power. They will not get a great deal of excitement out of using it, and indeed its use may show up a failure in the school, but it may have a shattering effect and immediately improve discipline. That is what we want to see.
Tonight we have a free vote on this issue, and that is very unusual. This is a darned good amendment, which will ensure proper standards in our schools. If the amendment saves young people from being beaten up and enables them to gain a qualification by staying on at school instead of being treated as a social failure, it will achieve a great deal. I support the amendment.

Mr. Bell: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels). In his private life he is a magnanimous person but he finds himself in the Chamber defending causes which must be difficult to defend.
I think he has been overtaken by events. Earlier the hon. Gentleman said that he did not believe there was an abuse of the caning procedure. He had to be referred to the article in tonight's London Standard, which is a clear abuse of that procedure. The hon. Gentleman sought refuge in the law of sub judice but there is no sub judice about this case, as no court action is pending. Therefore, we are entitled to refer to the photograph in The London Standard and to refer to this example of the worst aspects of caning.
We have heard a great deal of anecdotal evidence. The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) referred to an anecdotal experience when she was a magistrate. She said that someone from the Isle of Man said that he would not repeat an offence because of the birch. Such anecdotal evidence does not add to the argument. I believe the argument has been cogently put tonight and I believe that those who are against corporal punishment have won the argument. It is my intention to seek to assist the House in voting so that if the argument has been won on the Floor of the House, the vote may also be won in the Division Lobby.
I was the vice-chairman of the Newcastle education committee when it abolished corporal punishment in 1982. The Committee did so against great local opposition and against a referendum which had been enacted by the bureaucracy in education in Newcastle. That referendum sought to show that 82 per cent. of those who were canvassed believed in corporal punishment. We on Newcastle city council took our decision seriously and we abolished corporal punishment. Newcastle's system of education has been much improved and discipline has not lapsed. Indeed, we now have a better system of discipline in Newcastle than we had before.
I was quite startled by the figures that the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) gave. He mentioned Cleveland, which is my county, and high levels of corporal punishment there. I hope that the figures have diminished

since 1983 and that caning is now rare. I am aware that the education committee there has gone to some lengths to ameliorate matters.
The hon. Member for Salisbury also took us through the historic arguments. Anybody who reads the memoirs of Lord Curzon will realise the impact that severe caning had on him and how it affected his approach to life. We also know what canings did to Winston Churchill. I am sure that St. John's, Leatherhead, the school of the hon. Member for Leicester, East, will be pleased to see him here tonight, caning or otherwise. We know that caning leaves deep mental and physical impressions on those who are subjected to it. It is clear what psychological effect regular beatings had on Lord Curzon. The hon. Member for Salisbury said that judicial flogging ended in 1948. We hope to end caning tonight.
We have had a great deal of argument about the European Court of Human Rights. The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) took an astonishing approach. He seemed to say that morality and law could be distinguished, that law is not based on morality and that the fact that we have signed the European Convention on Human Rights does not oblige us morally to follow the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. Signing that convention means that we are honour bound and legally bound to follow the Court's decisions.
Since the 1982 decision involving Campbell and Cosans, the Government have not come to terms with the moral dilemma or with the legal obligation to make corporal punishment illegal. The result is that we are debating the Bill. The Secretary of State believes that these matters should be left to governing bodies and heads. He has not mentioned pupils. It is for the Government to take a moral stand. They must take account of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights and stop the present dual system of discipline in schools. The Government are obliged to take the lead and not to try to hedge their bets with some of their Back Benchers.
Corporal punishment is not necessary. Other systems of discipline have been referred to. The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) mentioned France, where social security payments are withheld for truancy. The French have said that that punishment is used only rarely. Corporal punishment has, however, been abolished in France and the Republic of Ireland. Other means of dealing with discipline problems have been found.

Mr. Pawsey: When the hon. Gentleman says that the penalty in France is not used frequently, is he not underlining the case for the cane, in that both have a deterrent effect? Neither has to be used frequently for there to be a deterrent effect.

Mr. Bell: We have heard a great deal about deterrent effect. There is no way in which to show that corporal punishment has a deterrent effect. I was subjected to corporal punishment at school, and it did not deter me —it made me more obtuse and difficult. I was a less good pupil as a result. Some teacher counselling would have had a much greater impact. I say that in no sense of recrimination against the school—it was the logic of the time—but it did not do me any good.
We have won the argument in favour of abolishing corporal punishment, and I hope that we win the vote. This has been an interesting and useful debate. It has had its historical analogies and its anecdotal evidence. We have


had arguments for and against, in the best traditions of the House. The House has a free vote tonight. The Opposition are whipped because we strongly oppose corporal punishment, but the House has a unique opportunity at this late stage in the session to make a mark and to get rid of corporal punishment and thus a dual system of discipline. We can make it clear to every school, every headmaster, every board of governors and every education committee what their obligations are. Other forms of discipline can be found. That would be in the interests of pupils, who have been referred to least during the debate. I will gladly vote for the abolition of corporal punishment, and I urge the House to do the same.

Mr. Evennett: In view of the length of the debate and the lateness of the hour, I shall be extremely brief.
This is an important issue, but it is not as important as many other education issues which we could have debated, such as standards, finance and excellence. I am a product of a grammar school, as many Conservative Members are, and a former teacher. Experiences in the public school system are not really relevant to the majority of people, because 95 per cent. of children go to state schools. We must never forget that the public school system, excellent though it is, has the ultimate right to expel pupils who are badly behaved or who commit indiscipline. It is not so easy in the state system. Where can they be expelled to from there?

Mr. George Foulkes: Australia.

9 pm

Mr. Evennett: My support for the retention of corporal punishment rests on two principles. First, I believe that the majority of parents in this country and certainly in my part of the country favour the retention of corporal punishment. Secondly, we have heard about certain offences in schools such as assaults on teachers and bullying fellow pupils in the playground, which I believe are extremely serious and deserve serious punishment. I believe that in such cases the cane can be effective both as a deterrent and as a punishment.
Members have referred to the article in The London Standard today. No-one would support such rare but well-publicised abuses of corporal punishment. The use of the cane must be reasonable and administered by the headmaster. It is for the school and the head of the school to determine what punishment is used for children who commit certain offences at school, and I believe that the cane has a very limited role to play in the modern school.
I am glad that Conservative Members have a free vote on this. It is interesting that the Opposition, who supposedly believe in freedom of choice on moral issues, have imposed a Whip. That is highly regrettable.
In my view it is for the head, for the school and for parents to ensure that the discipline in the school is adequate to allow education to continue. From my experience in London, as a parent, a governor and a teacher, I am well aware of some of the problems in inner London schools which do not have the cane and do not have adequate discipline. Regrettably, there are some schools in which very little education takes place because there is no discipline. It will not do for anyone in the House to pass the buck and say that there are alternatives when

no one has told the people of this country of any real alternative. There has been talk of expulsion, money and other measures but in certain circumstances those alternatives may not be so effective as the cane.
Conservative contributions today have shown that we want a good education for all children in this country. That necessitates good discipline, because without it good education is impossible. Without discipline in the classroom and in the playground, there will be fear—children who cannot learn because they are frightened to go to school and teachers who are frightened to teach because of the indiscipline in some schools.
Regrettable though corporal punishment may be, I believe that its maintenance in the state school system is essential as a deterrent and as a punishment, but it must be used reasonably and rarely. I support the amendment.

Mr. Ken Weetch: I wish to answer just one point about what does or does not make a good discipline in schools.
Having trained teachers for 10 years, I assure the House that it is almost impossible to say what makes one teacher a good disciplinarian and another teacher a poor disciplinarian. I believe that good classroom disciplinarians are born and not made. If a teacher does not have any natural sense of authority over the pupils nothing very much will be taught. It has also been my experience that if a teacher is a weak disciplinarian the availability of the cane will not make that teacher a strong disciplinarian.
I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) because he has been a practitioner and in these matters an ounce of experience is worth a ton of indignant theory. A good many teachers in this country believe that there are certain marginal circumstances in which the use of the cane may make a difference. There are teachers who use the cane but are by no means brutal or uncaring. They use the cane sparingly and they openly say that they use it as one of the tools of professional control which they rightly see as part of the framework of professional responsibility in the classroom.
Nevertheless, we ought now to do without corporal punishment in our schools. Some of the circumstances have already been described accurately, because I have experienced them myself. I have seen situations in which a teacher wishes to take the lesson but can get no order or decent quiet. What is to be done in such a situation? I can assure the House that it is not the cane. That will not restore order, because fundamental indiscipline in a school is due to fundamental factors, and the use of the cane is only effective, if at all, in marginal circumstances.
In the old Victorian board schools, the cane was kept on the desk and physical punishment was meted out instantly. In some of our schools there is no corporal punishment because they would not have it as part of the ethos of those schools. I have been in schools where great use is made of the cane, and the discipline is very bad. I have been in other schools in which the cane has been used moderately and the discipline has been fair to good. I am saying that there is no correlation between the use of the cane and good order and discipline in a school.
Hon. Members are right: unless we have discipline—that is the old-fashioned but right word—there must be order and discipline, peace and quiet for kids to learn. But


at the end of the day, a weak disciplinarian is not fortified by the cane. He or she will continue to be bad, and nothing is restored by the cane.
Conservative Members have challenged my hon. Friends to suggest alternatives, but the alternative goes to the root of the training of teachers. We must be much more careful whom we select to do this very important job. Part and parcel of a teacher's mental make-up must be that sense of authority that brings about law and order. If the wrong people are put into classrooms, we can give them a great bundle of canes but it will make no difference whatsoever.
We are debating fundamental matters. When we talk about the cane as an instrument of discipline, we are talking about something that is on the fringe of the problem. If we concentrate only on what good the stick will do, we shall have missed the fundamentals altogether.

Mr. Budgen: The House ought to be very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) for the careful way in which he set out the obligations that the Government have and the obligations, if any, that the House has.
The Government find themselves in an interesting position. In 1982, they were ordered by the European Court of Human Rights to abolish corporal punishment, but the natural instincts of the Tory party are to retain corporal punishment. The Government were caught between their treaty obligations to the European convention on human rights and the natural prejudices and views of the Tory party, and since 1982, have been delaying and tackling hither and thither in an attempt to reconcile two irreconcilable groups of people.
They now find that the other place has come to much the same conclusion as my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), and has said that a sort of halfway house is of no logical significance at all, that it is a nonsense, that the best way to demonstrate that we are prepared 10 obey this order of a foreign court is to abolish the whole thing. Indeed, that is what the court order of 1982 leads to.
My hon. Friend the Member for Withington was absolutely right. The Government are under an obligation to introduce legislation which will cause the law to conform to the order of the court. On the other hand, the House is not under any obligation to be persuaded by the arguments of the Executive. We are in this strange position because the Executive is drawn from the legislature and it is difficult for a Minister to say to the House, especially to his Conservative colleagues, "I know that there is not a majority in the Conservative party for the complete abolition of corporal punishment, I know that for better or for worse the prejudice of my hon. Friends will be in favour of keeping this form of discipline, even if it is rarely used. Although I would prefer to retain corporal punishment, I ask you to vote against corporal punishment so that we may obey a foreign court." The Secretary of State does not say that. The Government must tack from position to position, trying to do the impossible, as, indeed, they have done since 1982.
My hon. Friend the Member for Withington said that I was being too clever and awkward in anticipating that if the House voted for new clause 20, it would give rise to further litigation. My hon. Friend may not have had the pleasure of dealing with many litigants. One of the common characteristics of litigants is that they are nearly

as awkward as I am. He should understand that the Mrs. Gillicks of this world feel strongly and are often looking for an issue to fight for.
If the House decides to agree to new clause 20, some parents in future who send their child, for example, to a local comprehensive, will agree that their child may be beaten, if that child breaches the discipline of the school. They will do so in the usual inconsistent way in which many of us go along with things of which we disapprove, perhaps because that school is the best disciplined school or because they think that their child will do well there and go on to a good university. None of us send our children to school expecting that our little Johnny will be beaten. We all think that somebody else's little Johnny will be beaten. When their little Johnny is lined up to be beaten, they will try to withdraw their consent, but many teachers will say, "You have consented to your child being beaten and you can jolly well take the consequences of that because that consent will not be withdrawn."
My hon. Friend has said that I am too speculative about this, but if these proposals are accepted, some parent will go to the European Court of Human Rights and say, "You are a supervisory body. You have told the British people that they should abolish corporal punishment. With the usual hypocrisy and evasion of the British people they have tried to get round your direct order and that arrogant sovereign House of Commons has thought up some subterfuge. It is about time it was put in its place."
I hope that the House votes for new clause 20, and I anticipate that somebody will go to the European Court of Human Rights because anyone who has heard this and previous debates knows that people feel strongly about corporal punishment. It is almost inevitable that some parent will go to the European Court.
This is something which the House should decide. In future, when a Left-wing Government comes into power, of whatever coalition grouping, corporal punishment may be abolished. That would be a reasonable thing for a sovereign House of Commons to do. What is not right is that a Tory Government, against their instinct and against the wishes of those who elected them, should be forced by an external court to do something which goes against the present instincts of the majority of the British people.
I shall vote for new clause 20 in the clear knowledge that it probably will not stick. I salute now the future equivalent of Mrs. Gillick, or someone whom my hon. Friend the Member for Withington would describe as unreasonable—the litigant, the unreasonable person—who will take the matter to the European Court. Sooner or later the House and the nation will realise that this sort of sensitive and important issue is best decided here.

Mr. Clement Freud: I am sorry that we have spent so much time on what I consider to be a rather unimportant clause in what is generally a good Bill. I remind the House that earlier this week we spent two and half hours, and only that, on the fight against crime. Last week we spent three hours on the problems of the tin industry. Tonight we have spent over four hours on corporal punishment in schools. It is fair to say, if only to prove wrong the claim of the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett), that the alliance is not whipped for the vote on the amendment. It is for us., as it is for Conservative Members, a free vote. I believe


that the majority of alliance Members are deeply and fundamentally opposed to corporal punishment in schools.
I am personally opposed to corporal punishment in schools. I do not think that it does any good. I have yet to meet an educationist for whom I have respect who believes that corporal punishment is a good way of combating indiscipline or making pupils better.
I have listened to the entire debate with great care, and it is significant that only a minority of Members—they are all sitting on the Government Benches — have spoken in favour of corporal punishment. The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) seemed to feel that if a teacher kept a cane in a corner of a classroom his purpose would somehow be served. Education by fear is not an acceptable way of education and I oppose it.
The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) seemed to say that a teacher should hit, but not hard. He felt that crime was best dealt with by violence. I have little faith in that solution.
The hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) suggested in an intervention that if a majority of parents or governors wanted corporal punishment, they should have it. I am sorry that someone who comes from Burke's old constituency should feel that there is that special knowledge in a majority which wants anything. If we obtained opinions from the majority of people, we would find that they were against income tax and many other things which we, with our superior knowledge, know that we cannot do without.
The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) advanced an interesting argument when he said that a clip around the ear has never harmed anyone. For every 20 children who received a clip around the ear as a summary form of justice, half a dozen of them were not guilty and grew up with a deep resentment against the law, which gave the right, without any sort of jury system, to hit children, including the old-fashioned clip around the ear. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there was the odd child who became better for it, but there were many who felt, "That man has done something to me that was unjust." Instead of becoming good citizens, they became that much worse.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: I wonder how many children, not having suffered instant retribution for whatever they were guilty of, have been led to believe that they could commit further sins—or indeed, crimes —and get off?

Mr. Freud: That is an entertaining argument. I believe that any child who got off was enormously grateful for his or her good luck; but he may have felt guilty. We would wish to encourage a feeling of guilt rather than to beat children into submission.
Hitting children is the easy option. It does not wash. I have yet to meet a good schoolmaster who favoured it. I refer to the speech by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who was by all accounts a good schoolmaster. Many years ago, the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) made the memorable remark that there are schoolmasters who can do a brilliant job of work with a class of 30 or

35, and there are those who will have a riot with one dead rabbit. I believe that he was right. Schoolmasters who beat from a sense of weakness bring education into ill repute.
Finally, those who believe that beating or caning children performs some function should realise that that is not what we are voting on tonight. We have two alternatives this evening. One is to abolish corporal punishment. The other is to create a divisive system in which two children who have committed the same crime are given different punishments. We must consider not what we think might be good or bad but the amendment paper and the alternatives. I ask the House to vote for the retention of clauses 44 and 45 and to reject the amendments.

Mr. Max Madden: In the city of Bradford there is considerable interest in education and in the issue of corporal punishment. On Friday, our evening newspaper, the Bradford Telegraph and Argus, published a survey of the views of a number of headmasters of upper schools in Bradford, including their views on corporal punishment. I was glad to see the Secretary of State return to the Chamber. He was pictured in Saturday's edition of the newspaper reading the survey which had been driven to him at a conference that he was attending in the midlands.
Seventeen of the 24 head teachers responded to the survey. Fourteen of the 17 did not want corporal punishment
even as a last resort.
The summary of the survey's findings stated:
the balance of opinion narrowly says today's standards … are at least as good as they were two decades ago. And if discipline is necessary it shouldn't be with a cane or slipper, say 82 per cent. But while Bradford Council takes legal advice on scrapping corporal punishment, only 18 per cent. want it kept as a final deterrent.
The survey also revealed:
16 out of 17 say staff morale has taken a tumble since the year-long teachers' strike … 16 out of 17 say links with parents have suffered in the last year.
I believe that if we vote against corporal punishment tonight, many of those matters will be improved. Staff morale will be improved, and so will classroom discipline and relations with parents. During our debate it has become clear that there is considerable evidence that corporal punishment is counterproductive, fostering bitterness, alienation and hostility. It is the cause of bad discipline, not the cure for it. There is ample academic evidence to show that that is the case.
There is considerable evidence to show that pupil-teacher relationships are improved if there is an absence of corporal punishment. Certainly there is considerable evidence to show that in areas where corporal punishment has been abolished there is no sign of classroom discipline deteriorating or suspensions increasing.
We have heard from many who have come from teaching backgrounds in the debate, what many of us know from our own experience at school, that only bad teachers need to resort to corporal punishment — the cane and other means—to impose any sort of discipline or order in their classrooms.
We also know that teachers have gone beyond what is defined as reasonable and moderate corporal punishment. There have been many references to the case reported in The London Standard today. We also know of the cases which have gone to the courts where teachers have been found not guilty after beating boys with a riding crop;


caning a 12-year-old boy to bleeding point for shoddy work, bursting a boy's eardrum by slapping him around the face, and caning a nine-year-old boy on the thighs so severely that a police surgeon said in court that "excessive force" had been used causing weals and deep abrasions.
Commenting on the survey to which I referred in my opening comments, the newspaper's editoral said:
We don't want our young people to get on their bikes and seek work in Slough or Reading. We want them to stay here and help revitalize our city with energy and imagination.
But first we need to give them an education to prepare them for that task. We want to turn out people equipped to help the city to march forward with hope, rather than stand in the dole queue with despair.
We can't do that in schools that are falling down, with staff who are so demoralized that vision as educators is replaced by thoughts of an early pension.
We have asked often enough for help. Now is the time to demand that the Government raises its eyes from the Home Counties, looks Northward, and gives major provincial centres like Bradford the cash to repair the launch pads from which their educational systems, and their futures, can soar.
I agree with the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) that the debate will be seen by many parents as a complete irrelevance to the plight of the schools which their children are attending. The concerns of parents are with standards in our schools, their fabric and equipment, the sufficiency of teachers, their quality and pay and the quality of books available to their children. Those are the issues that lie at the centre of the concern of so many of our constituents about the education services that we provide.
If tonight we sweep away corporal punishment for ever, we shall have done a service to our schools. We shall certainly have done a service to our pupils in those schools, to teachers and to parents. It is time for the House to take a decision; and I am sure that that decision will be to abolish corporal punishment in our schools.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: We have had a useful debate, although I regret that we have spent so much time talking about one aspect of discipline in schools, corporal punishment, and not more time on all the other issues. I am sure that the House is united in wanting there to be good order and discipline in our schools.
If the amendment that was moved by the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) is carried, not only will the House have spent a great deal of time talking about one aspect of discipline, but a lot of school governors will he encouraged in the next few months to spend a lot of time talking about corporal punishment rather than talking about the much wider issues of good order and discipline in schools. I hope at least that the governing bodies will realise that they should give as much, if not more, time to other aspects of discipline in their schools rather than to simply concentrate on corporal punishment.
I must also stress that we are not really talking about whether we are in favour or against corporal punishment. We are talking about the problems that have been created as a result of the European Convention and the European Court's Judgment. The hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) made that point. We have to face up to the fact that the Government have attempted to legislate on this issue. Last year, through the intellectual skills of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), the former Secretary of State, and the skills of the Department of Education and Science, the Government tried to find a scheme which was workable and within the law as it was

laid down as a result of the judgment of the European Court. The House was extremely sceptical about the scheme and whether it was workable. The House of Lords correctly threw the Bill out as totally unworkable.
9.30 pm
The present Secretary of State is choosing to say that the Government, having failed to find a workable solution to the problem, will hand the problem over to the governors of individual schools. It may be that some governors will be more able than the Government machine to produce a solution. However, Ministers will be copping out if the clause comes out of the Bill as Ministers wish. If the clause comes out, they can leave it to the governors. However, very few governors will have among their number a lawyer who can work out whether the actions that they might propose to retain corporal punishment will or will not be legal. I would at least suggest that if the Government want to retain corporal punishment as a choice for governors, they should present governors with a workable scheme which would be legal. It would be unfortunate if governors spent a great deal of time arguing about the merits of corporal punishment and then found that they could not turn it into a workable scheme or that they could not gain the confidence of the teachers who would have to adminster it, because they feared that there would be a court action and the whole thing would degenerate into farce.
Good discipline in schools involves maintaining the authority of the school. Nothing destroys the authority of a school more than the uncertainty of the law and the possibility of individual parents taking teachers to court with the chance of winning their court action.
Conservative Members have referred to corporal punishment but have said that they do not want to use it, they merely want to have it present as a deterrent. Anyone with practical school experience knows that the vast majority of pupils who misbehave do not do so thinking that they might be caught. They misbehave in the belief that they will get away with it. A deterrent only works if they assume that they will be caught. Very few pupils who misbehave do so on the assumption that they will be caught. A very small number do assume that they will be caught but misbehave because they wish to draw attention to themselves and seek to be punished. There are other ways to deal with these pupils, and it would he foolish to make martyrs of them by using corporal punishment.
It has also been suggested that one survey shows that many parents are in favour of corporal punishment. I suspect that the majority of parents are in favour of corporal punishment for other people's children and not for their own. I once worked in a school where the head insisted that he should write to parents to inform them that he was thinking of applying corporal punishment to their child for misbehaviour. This was a most sensible procedure. However, he was amazed at the number of parents who wrote back to say that although they were in favour of corporal punishment, for one reason or another, it should not be applied to their child. The real test is, how many people would be in favour of corporal punishment for their child? I suspect that not too many would be in favour.
I would also like to consider the question about the choice of school. Conservative Members have argued that one solution to the problem is to allow people to have a choice between a school in which corporal punishment will


be administered and one where it will not. That is nonsense. In many parts of rural Britain, these choices do not exist. In fact, we are getting rid of the nearest school for most children, the local village school. It is nonsense to think that they will have a choice of school. That applies to many urban areas. Because of the problems connected with walking to school on account of traffic and other difficulties, the idea that parents can be offered a choice between a school that uses corporal punishment and a school that does not use it is also nonsense.
As a young teacher I administered corporal punishment. I felt then that it was unsatisfactory and wrong, and I was not happy about it. I am still not happy about it. My excuse is that the ethos of the school where I taught put pressure on the teachers. Also I taught groups of 40 or more pupils. Most teachers do not have to do that today. But corporal punishment did not solve any of the problems.
Conservative Members have to face up to certain problems connected with corporal punishment. Is it to be administered because it is a disgrace to the pupil who receives it? If that is the reason for administering corporal punishment, there are alternatives to it that signify that the pupil is in disgrace. Or is corporal punishment to be administered not because it disgraces the pupil but because it inflicts pain? Major problems are involved if the intention is to inflict pain.
Furthermore, the alert secondary school pupil knows how to counter corporal punishment. He says, "It didn't hurt, Sir." Many pupils refuse to accept corporal punishment; they will not obey the instruction to hold out their hand or to bend over. In my early teaching career I witnessed some very undignified incidents when teachers tried to administer corporal punishment without the consent of the pupil. In certain schools pupils manage to glory in the number of their beatings; they call themselves the cocks of the school because of the number of beatings that they have received. That does not improve discipline in schools. Those who have seen corporal punishment administered in schools where general discipline is poor must feel as strongly as I that it should be abolished. We must try to teach self-discipline in schools. We must demonstrate to young people that they ought to want to behave and co-operate and that if their consent cannot be won a series of sanctions can be applied which, far more effectively than corporal punishment, will achieve good discipline in schools.
As for the judgment, I ask those hon. Members who are to speak after me in the debate to demonstrate that the governors could introduce a workable, legal scheme that would not create two classes of child, to one of which corporal punishment could be applied although it could not be applied to the other.

Mr. Marlow: Were this House to pass a scheme of corporal punishment, is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that it would not be legal?

Mr. Bennett: This amendment does not ask us to pass a scheme. We are being asked to remove the abolition of corporal punishment from the Bill. Last year the Government put forward a scheme which they thought would meet the requirements laid down in the judgments of the European Court. Everybody believed that scheme to be a nonsense. Conservative Members were very

reluctant to vote for it at second Reading. However, the Bill made progress through this House. However, the other place threw it out. No hon. Member really believes that the other place was not right to throw out an unworkable scheme. If the Government were introducing a workable alternative scheme, that might be satisfactory, but they are not. They imply that the governors will have to dream up a scheme that is more practical than the one that the Government put forward last year and that is also legal.
As I said earlier, if the Minister with a whole Government Department behind him cannot produce a scheme it is a little unrealistic to expect individual governing bodies to produce one that is legal and workable. It is difficult to produce a legal and workable scheme. We have two alternatives: we can continue to leave it to governing bodies, and in practice that will lead to slow abolition after a great deal of time wasted in debate, or we can accept the clear opportunity to rid ourselves of corporal punishment and to take a major step in concentrating everybody's mind on genuinely improving discipline in schools rather than exacting retribution on a small number of people.

Mr. Chris Patten: There are two things on which we can at least all agree. First, we all agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) that no litigant could conceivably be as awkward as he. Secondly, we would all agree that this has been a long debate. I commend the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) opened the debate several hours ago. We have heard some interesting speeches; I refer especially to the speech by the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) which was extremely calm and clear. I should also mention the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester). I agree with his comment about a number of the arguments having gone considerably over the top.
I said the debate has been long and some people might take the view that it has been overlong. I shall be as brief as possible, because I know that the House wants to decide the matter. I do not think that many of the things said in the debate will change the minds of hon. Members one way or another.
I shall speak first to amendments Nos. 153 and 165, which seek to delete clauses 44 and 45. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on Second Reading, every hon. Member has a view about whether corporal punishment should be retained as an available sanction. It is an entirely proper subject for a free vote and I am sorry that that view is not shared by the Opposition Front Bench. I have made that point before.
I emphasise that there is no question of any pressure being applied to any of my right hon. or hon. Friends about how they should vote. I want to stress that, because it was suggested from time to time on Second Reading. There were a number of winks and nudges and nose strokings going on, implying that there were free votes and free votes. I make it clear that this is a free free vote and I am sorry that that is not the case with the Opposition. I am glad that they have therefore found something on which they can agree.
The House will recall the recent history of this subject. Last session we introduced a Bill to give parents of pupils educated at state expense the right to exempt them from


corporal punishment. That Bill fell, following an amendment narrowly carried on Report in another place, which in effect abolished corporal punishment. This session, an amendment abolishing corporal punishment was made to the present Bill in another place and this time the amendment was carried by an even narrower majority, of two. In Committee the Government have remedied deficiencies in the provision which was inserted.
Clauses 44 and 45 introduce five significant changes. First, they provide for the abolition of corporal punishment in Scotland and pave the way for similar action in Northern Ireland by Order in Council. Secondly, they cover pupils being educated otherwise than at school, and thirdly, they leave independent schools free to retain corporal punishment, except for pupils who are being educated at public expense, under the assisted places scheme for example, who would not be subject to the sanction. Fourthly, the clauses restrict the liability of a teacher who imposes corporal punishment to an action through the civil courts rather than, as proposed in another place, through the civil or criminal courts. I stress that this is where the punishment is moderate and reasonable. If it is not, the teacher, as now, can face criminal proceedings.
Fifth and last, subsection (3) of each clause provides for a teacher to be able to restrain pupils to avert an immediate danger of personal injury or damage to property. In those circumstances, the teacher must be able to use all reasonable measures, including the actions that could come under the heading of reasonable corporal punishment. Teachers need this important provision to be able to deal with outbreaks of violence and other emergencies.
9.45 pm
The House can take a decision on two clauses that, if they remain in the Bill, will abolish corporal punishment in the maintained sector in England, Wales and Scotland and make teachers who use it liable to civil proceedings. If the clauses are passed, abolition will be extended to Northern Ireland, by means of an Order in Council. The date on which abolition will come into effect will be laid down by a commencement order under clause 60. The Government would propose 15 August 1987—that is, from the beginning of the school year after next, so that the schools affected have time to adjust their disciplinary policies and procedures.
However, if the House agrees with the amendments and deletes clauses 44 and 45, the legal position will remain unchanged. Teachers will continue to have the right, by virtue of being in loco parentis, to use moderate and reasonable corporal punishment. I should emphasise that we are talking only about moderate and reasonable punishment. If it is not, the teacher can be prosecuted.

Mr. Bell: The hon. Gentleman used the words "moderate and reasonable". What would he say of the picture that was in The London Standard tonight?

Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman knows that I am not dodging the question in saying that that may well be a matter for the courts and it would be wholly improper for me to offer an observation. The position is clear about moderate and reasonable punishment. If it is not moderate and reasonable, the teacher can be prosecuted.
If the House agrees with the amendments, then, as my right hon. Friend said on Second Reading, the

Government would look to the new governing bodies in England and Wales to make arrangements in accordance with the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights that philosophical convictions of parents should be respected. It will be for the governing body to work out with the head teacher and parents what arrangements will be most appropriate for the particular school. However, when the governing body has laid down the general policy for the school, it will of course be for the head teacher, using his professional judgement, to decide within the framework of the policy how to deal with each individual case.
The Government cannot accept new clause 20, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). I pay tribute to his knowledge of these matters and to his knowledge of more positive aspects of education policy. We do not agree with the principles that the new clause embodies. The principles on which the disciplinary regime are founded are a key part of the conduct of the school. This is a point that we discussed at great length in Committee. The Bill gives a general responsibility for the conduct of the school to the governing body. It would fatally flaw this responsibility if, in the matter of the principles of discipline, the judgment of the head teacher could overrule that of the governing body.
I accept that the day-to-day responsibility for discipline should rest with the head teacher, but the availability of corporal punishment as a sanction in schools must be a matter for the governing body to decide, although in consultation with the head teacher, and taking account of the views of parents. Clause 22(1)(b) requires the head teacher to have regard to any written statement of general principles provided by the governing body, and it would run counter to that requirement if the head teacher were to go against the preference of a governing body not to have corporal punishment in a school. In some cases, the governing body, having regard to the views of parents, might be content to leave the decision to the head teacher, but that is clearly not the situation that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North has in mind.
Reverting to clauses 44 and 45, we would, if the amendments were carried, keep a close watch on how governing bodies handled the matter. In the circular which would follow the Act, we would explain to all governing bodies the necessity of respecting parents' philosophical convictions. That guidance will apply not only to the newly constituted governing bodies which were not in prospect when we promoted the Education (Corporal Punishment) Bill last Session, but also to existing governing bodies while they continue.
Moreover, we should take advantage of the fact that, as soon as the Bill comes into force, the provision for the annual parents' meeting will apply to every governing body. Our circular would ask the governing body of a school which now applies corporal punishment to put the issue, including the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, to the first annual parents' meeting so as to assist the governing body in reaching a decision which respects that ruling.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister make it clear when he talks about the governing body that that applies to England and Wales? In Scotland, presumably that function would be carried out by the local education authority.

Mr. Patten: Quite so. The hon. Member for Falkirk, East, in his admirable speech, put the position much more clearly than I could.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear in his speech on Second Reading that, in his personal view, the decision on the retention or abolition of corporal punishment should be left to the governing body, the head teacher and the parents. I share that opinion, for two reasons. First, some head teachers and staff face considerable difficulties in maintaining discipline. I do not believe that those head teachers who wish to retain corporal punishment regard it as the ultimate sanction. I do not regard it as that, but it is one possible sanction. Its retention or abolition does not constitute an issue of conscience of the first magnitude.
I put it on record that I agree with some of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Withington on that issue. Many other controversies raise much greater issues of conscience, but corporal punishment is regarded by many knowledgable and responsible educationists as a valuable disciplinary instrument. We should not lightly deprive them of it.
I go further: at a time when there is justified anxiety about disruption in our schools, the abolition of corporal punishment would send out the wrong signals. It might be considered a weakening of the position of head teachers, which is the last thing we want.
Secondly, if we wish to strengthen the position of governing bodies and parents in matters connected with the conduct of the school—I realise that the Opposition are somewhat schizophrenic on that point, but that is what the Bill seeks to do—it would make no sense to take the decision on a matter such as corporal punishment away from governing bodies and parents. That would be contrary to the entire thrust of the Bill.
I do not suggest that corporal punishment should be retained if the governing body does not believe it is necessary. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) was not suggesting earlier that that was my opinion. I do suggest, however, that it should be for the governing body to decide. I am prepared to trust the good sense of governing bodies and head teachers and their willingness to act in accordance with the guidance we shall give them on the respect due to the philosophical convictions of parents. Those convictions would be respected, and we shall check whether they are. If that belief proved ill-founded, the Government would need to consider further legislative measures.
I respect the sincerely held opinion of those who take a different view, but, on balance—I repeat that, for me, it is a question of balance—that is the conclusion which I reach. I therefore support Amendments Nos. 153 and 165 which were moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth.
I hope that, if the amendments are passed, in due course my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North will not feel obliged to press his new clause 20 to a vote. If he does, I shall have to vote against it for the reasons which I sought to adduce earlier. I repeat that, on balance, there is an argument for voting for amendments Nos. 153 and 165. I am delighted that the Leader of the Opposition is with us tonight. On this issue at least he has united his party on a three-line Whip.

Mr. Pawsey: I have sat throughout the whole of this long and interesting debate. Speeches may occasionally

have contained a measure of exaggeration and may have sometimes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) said, gone over the top, but in general they were sincere.
I was educated wholly in the state sector and so were my children. My experience suggests that schools know their pupils best and know the best method of ensuring discipline. Therefore, I remain convinced that abolition of corporal punishment would result in more suspensions, more expulsions and more detentions. Incidentally, there can be no justification for severe caning, as described by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). That is not acting in loco parentis as a moderate and reasonable parent would.
The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) called for abolition, but I doubt whether many Members on this side were convinced by his arguments. He certainly did not make any real suggestions for maintaining discipline in our schools. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright) gave several examples of the improper use of the cane. But it is an exaggeration to say that two or three bad cases blacken the case for corporal punishment. After all, would he condemn the 400,000 teachers in this country on the basis of how 10 or 12 of them behave?
It is not true that a vote for the amendments is a vote for chaos. A vote for the amendments is a vote for choice. Does the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) honestly believe that an analogy can be drawn between corporal punishment and slavery and votes for women? On reflection, he may agree that he went over the top and was less than fair. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North made a speech full of conviction. He spoke with knowledge that is based on long experience as a teacher — [Interruption.]He rightly emphasised that corporal punishment was used only in the most exceptional and severe cases. As he correctly said, corporal punishment is the backstop that is used in our schools.
I come to the speech of the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing)—[Interruption.]—who rightly chided me for failing—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman moved the amendment and has a right to be heard when uttering his final brief words.

Mr. Pawsey: I can take a judicious hint, but I must say that the hon. Member for Falkirk, East was right to chide me and I thank him for the courteous and friendly way in which he did so. I accept what he said.
I can assure my right hon. and hon. Friends that if they vote for the amendment they will allow governing bodies to decide on positive use of corporal punishment for themselves. The local education authorities will not be able to impose their will on governing bodies by using the articles of government. These amendments are about freedom of choice, discipline, and standards in education, and I urge my hon. Friends to vote for them this evening.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 230, Noes 231.

Division No. 274]
[9.58 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)


Alexander, Richard
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)


Amess, David
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)


Arnold, Tom
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)






Batiste, Spencer
Hanley, Jeremy


Berth, A. J.
Hannam, John


Bellingham, Henry
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Bendall, Vivian
Harris, David


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Haselhurst, Alan


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Blackburn, John
Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hawksley, Warren


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hayes, J.


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hayward, Robert


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Henderson, Barry


Brinton, Tim
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hickmet, Richard


Browne, John
Hind, Kenneth


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hirst, Michael


Budgen, Nick
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Burt, Alistair
Holt, Richard


Butcher, John
Hordern, Sir Peter


Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam
Howard, Michael


Butterfill, John
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Cash, William
Hunter, Andrew


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Irving, Charles


Chapman, Sydney
Jackson, Robert


Chope, Christopher
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Churchill, W. S.
Jessel, Toby


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Clegg, Sir Walter
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Cockeram, Eric
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Colvin, Michael
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Coombs, Simon
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Cope, John
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Corrie, John
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Couchman, James
Lang, Ian


Crouch, David
Latham, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lawler, Geoffrey


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lawrence, Ivan


Dicks, Terry
Lee, John (Pendle)


Dorrell, Stephen
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Lightbown, David


Dover, Den
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Dunn, Robert
Maclean, David John


Durant, Tony
McLoughlin, Patrick


Eggar, Tim
Major, John


Evennett, David
Malone, Gerald


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Marlow, Antony


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Maude, Hon Francis


Fallon, Michael
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Farr, Sir John
Merchant, Piers


Favell, Anthony
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Moate, Roger


Forman, Nigel
Monro, Sir Hector


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Forth, Eric
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mudd, David


Fox, Sir Marcus
Murphy, Christopher


Franks, Cecil
Neale, Gerrard


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Nelson, Anthony


Freeman, Roger
Neubert, Michael


Fry, Peter
Nicholls, Patrick


Gale, Roger
Norris, Steven


Galley, Roy
Oppenheim, Phillip


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Ottaway, Richard


Glyn, Dr Alan
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Gow, Ian
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)


Grant, Sir Anthony
Pawsey, James


Greenway, Harry
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Gregory, Conal
Pollock, Alexander


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Powley, John


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Grylls, Michael
Raffan, Keith


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Rathbone, Tim





Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Thornton, Malcolm


Roe, Mrs Marion
Thurnham, Peter


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Tracey, Richard


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Trippier, David


Sayeed, Jonathan
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Viggers, Peter


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Waddington, David


Silvester, Fred
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Sims, Roger
Walden, George


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wall, Sir Patrick


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Ward, John


Speed, Keith
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Spencer, Derek
Warren, Kenneth


Squire, Robin
Watts, John


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Stern, Michael
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Whitfield, John


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Whitney, Raymond


Stokes, John
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Wood, Timothy


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Woodcock, Michael


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman



Terlezki, Stefan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Mr. Michael Shersby and


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Mr. Peter Bruinvels.


NOES


Alton, David
Corbett, Robin


Ancram, Michael
Corbyn, Jeremy


Anderson, Donald
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Craigen, J. M.


Ashby, David
Crowther, Stan


Ashdown, Paddy
Cunningham, Dr John


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dalyell, Tam


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Baldry, Tony
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Deakins, Eric


Barnett, Guy
Dewar, Donald


Barron, Kevin
Dixon, Donald


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Dobson, Frank


Bell, Stuart
Dormand, Jack


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Douglas, Dick


Bermingham, Gerald
Dubs, Alfred


Blair, Anthony
Duffy, A. E. P.


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Boyes, Roland
Eadie, Alex


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Eastham, Ken


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpfn SE)


Bright, Graham
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Ewing, Harry


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Fatchett, Derek


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Buchan, Norman
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Fisher, Mark


Caborn, Richard
Flannery, Martin


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Fletcher, Alexander


Campbell, Ian
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Foster, Derek


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Foulkes, George


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Cartwright, John
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Freud, Clement


Clarke, Thomas
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Clay, Robert
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Clelland, David Gordon
Garrett, W. E.


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
George, Bruce


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Cohen, Harry
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Coleman, Donald
Godman, Dr Norman


Conlan, Bernard
Golding, Mrs Llin


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Gourlay, Harry


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Grist, Ian






Ground, Patrick
McKelvey, William


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
McTaggart, Robert


Hardy, Peter
McWilliam, John


Harman, Ms Harriet
Madden, Max


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Marek, Dr John


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Martin, Michael


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Home Robertson, John
Meacher, Michael


Hoyle, Douglas
Meadowcroft, Michael


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Michie, William


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Mikardo, Ian


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Janner, Hon Greville
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


John, Brynmor
Miscampbell, Norman


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Moore, Rt Hon John


Kennedy, Charles
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Key, Robert
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Nellist, David


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Newton, Tony


Kirkwood, Archy
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Lambie, David
O'Brien, William


Lannond, James
O'Neill, Martin


Leighton, Ronald
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Lester, Jim
Park, George


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Parry, Robert


Litherland, Robert
Patchett, Terry


Livsey, Richard
Pavitt, Laurie


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Pendry, Tom


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Pike, Peter


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Powell, William (Corby)


Loyden, Edward
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Prescott, John


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Radice, Giles


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Randall, Stuart





Raynsford, Nick
Temple-Morris, Peter


Redmond, Martin
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Rhodes James, Robert
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Richardson, Ms Jo
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Tinn, James


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Torney, Tom


Robertson, George
Wainwright, R.


Rogers, Allan
Waldegrave, Hon William


Rooker, J. W.
Wallace, James


Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Wareing, Robert


Rowe, Andrew
Watson, John


Rowlands, Ted
Weetch, Ken


Sedgemore, Brian
Welsh, Michael


Sheerman, Barry
Wheeler, John


Shields, Mrs Elizabeth
White, James


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wilkinson, John


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Short, Mrs R.(Whampt'n NE)
Wilson, Gordon


Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Winnick, David


Skinner, Dennis
Wolfson, Mark


Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Snape, Peter
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Soley, Clive
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Spearing, Nigel



Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Tellers for the Noes:


Stott, Roger
Mr. Ray Powell and


Strang, Gavin
Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.


Straw, Jack

Question accordingly negatived.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Education Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour — [Mr. chris Patten.]

New Clause 1

EDUCATIONAL MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCE

'The Secretary of State may by regulations make provisions requiring local education authorities to provide educational maintenance allowances for pupils aged 16 to 19'. —[Mr. Radice.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Radice: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am afraid that I am slightly overcome by the victory. It is right that, in a Bill which has considerable pretensions, we should he able to debate important education issues. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will right hon. and hon. Members who are not staying for the debate on new clause 1 kindly leave quietly?

Mr. Radice: In the 1970s, the case for educational maintenance allowances was argued in terms of widening working class participation in full-time and higher education. The staying-on rate in Britain is extremely low and compares very poorly with our continental rivals.[Interruption]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members leave quietly, please? It is unfair to the Oppostion Front Bench not to do so.

Mr. Radice: In the 1970s, we argued that despite the expansion of higher education working class participation had risen only marginally. I know that in my constituency a number of young people have been deterred from staying on at school or in full-time education. One of the main reasons for that is finance. In strongly working class areas such as Tameside and Durham, 25 per cent. of pupils with 5 O-levels or equivalent do not stay on at school. The comparable figure for leafy suburbs such as Harrow is about 10 per cent. Clearly, there is a major problem and it is related to factors other than ability. We seek to explore those other factors today.
I do not argue that lack of money is the only deterrent. Clearly, there are other factors, such as the kind of institutions that schools are, the prospect of other kinds of work and the youth training scheme. Nevertheless, there is plenty of evidence that the financial considerations are important.
The case for educational maintenance allowances is even stronger in the 1980s with the growth in youth unemployment [Interruption.] I appreciate that Ministers, reeling from the result of the last Division, have other things to discuss, but perhaps we could continue with the business. Youth unemployment is extremely high, especially in areas such as the north, the north west, Scotland and Wales. Youth unemployment in this country is higher than in many other countries. The YTS has also been expanded. I believe that we should have a youth training scheme, but the YTS presents a problem in that it carries an allowance whereas remaining in full-time education carries no reward at all.
The proportion of pupils staying on in full-time education is actually declining and is lower than in most other western European countries. We believe that those who stay on should receive educational maintenance

allowances, first, because it would encourage more people to stay on and, secondly, because it would recognise the importance of education and the fact that its contribution to the economy is as important as that of training.
For those reasons, we believe that there is a strong case for educational maintenance allowances. I accept that there are cost factors and that in the first instance we may need to target such allowances towards regions or local authorities that are worse off or individuals who are most deprived.
We recognise that this Government, particularly in their dying hours, are not likely to accept the case for educational maintenance allowances — [Interruption.] "Dying moments" is perhaps a more accurate summary. However, even after the excitement of what has just happened, when we voted to abolish corporal punishrnem, it is right that the House should have the opportunity to discuss educational maintenance allowances as a trailer to the real thing when the next Labour Government introduce their own education Bill.

Mr. Chris Patten: We come back to rather more mundane matters. It is ironic that those who have tabled the new clause, who are usually so resistant to anything that hints of central Government restriction of local authority freedom, should now be trying to increase the control that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can exercise over the action of local authorities.
Although we are flattered by the concern of the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) to increase the influence of my Department, we must resist the new clause. I see no need whatsoever to interfere with the existing discretion of local authorities over maintenance allowances for 16 to 19-year-olds. Our policy in this respect does not differ from that of previous Governments of both political persuasions. Young people in non-advanced full-time education have traditionally been regarded as primarily dependent upon their parents for financial support until their 19th birthday. As such, child benefit is paid in respect of these students, and local! education authorities can add to this with discretionary grants—for example, to those in financial hardship.
This policy is sometimes contrasted with the Government's policy on financial support to higher education students, where local education authorities are required by law to provide grants. Courses for 16 to 19-year-olds at the non-advanced level are, however, much more concerned with meeting purely local needs than is higher education. The Government recognise that the latter is more of a national service, by paying 90 per cent. of the cost of mandatory awards through a DES specific grant. For non-advanced courses, local education authorities are in the best position to judge need in the light of the individual circumstances of both the student and the course—which may vary quite considerably and to weigh this against other priorities within the local education service.
The hon. Member for Durham, North referred, perfectly understandably, to the post-16 participation rate—

Mr. Radice: To the staying-on rate.

Mr. Patten: I accept that paying maintenance allowances to all those staying on in full-time education might have some effect on the overall participation rate. The question is whether that would be sufficient to


warrant the expenditure involved in paying such allowances. The limited studies that have been conducted suggest that the effect on the participation rate would not be that great, but we know that the expenditure would be. The net additional cost of paying an allowance of £27 a week to all 16 to 19-year-olds in full-time education—as recommended from time to time by the Labour party—would be around £600 million per annum in England alone. That would be deadweight expenditure. It would be paid in respect of young people who would stay on in full-time education anyway, and I personally can think of far better ways than that of spending £600 million.

Mr. Radice: The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed this matter on different occasions, and have done so before the television cameras. I pointed out to him on that occasion that to begin with this would not necessarily be introduced for all students and that it might have to be concentrated. Obviously, that affects the cost. It would not initially have the deadweight factor that the Minister has been talking about. He accepts that it may have some impact on the participation rate.

Mr. Patten: I am not sure how the hon. Gentleman would avoid the deadweight factor by introducing this scheme in a limited way, or how he would propose targeting it to avoid the deadweight factor. If he will forgive a moment of uncharacteristic controversy on my part, I find it curious how his price tags go up and down according to the conversations he has had recently with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). Sometimes his policies are more expensive and expansive than they are on other occasions.
The expenditure would not be justified, and we expect the participation rate to increase overall in the next few years when the number of those aged 16 and above will be falling, for demographic reasons. That argues the case strongly for taking a more coherent view of our 16 to 19-year-old provision in education and training. It does not argue the case for the new clause, which was moved in a spirit of euphoria by the hon. Gentleman, who was buoyed up by the proceeds of a three-line Whip.

Mr. Freud: One would have thought that the Government, having been let off the hook by one vote in the Division, would now lean forward to accommodate the Opposition and let some small, useful measure, such as the educational maintenance allowance, have a fairer wind than they intended.
The Minister said that £600 million was a deadweight expenditure in that it was paying children to stay on at school who would anyway stay on at school. He is wrong.

Mr. Chris Patten: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that none of those who would receive the allowance would anyway stay on at school? That is what the words "deadweight expenditure" mean.

Mr. Freud: No. The Minister knows perfectly well that there is a disincentive for many children to stay on at school. He knows that jobs for 16-year-olds are hard to come by. The average 16-year-old has three choices: to stay on at school, to go into training or to receive unemployment benefit. I am saying that without an educational maintenance allowance the financial attractions of unemployment benefit outstrip those of staying on in education or taking up training.
Obviously the great majority of those children would stay on at school anyway, but a proportion of children leave school for the greater financial security of unemployment benefit. That is wrong. The Child Poverty Action Group has looked into the matter, and there is no question but that the Manpower Services Commission would not now be doing a survey on payment to 16 to 19-year-olds if that were not relevant.
Staying in education involves a double cost for poorer families, in that they already have to pay for school materials, such as books and trips, and they lack the contribution to the family income from the young person who would otherwise be at work or in training. I hope that the Minister will consider, not giving away a deadweight £600 million, but formulating a structure whereby the most attractive financial option for a child will not be to become unemployed.
There is room for argument about the best way to act, but the case for some sort of allowance is absolutely clear. I realise that the Minister is at present discussing with the Whip what time he will go to bed, but I hope he will realise that for thousands of young children between 16 and 19 an educational maintenance allowance is crucial.

Mr. Robert M. Wareing: Conservative Members have complained that successive Governments have maintained the existing system of discretionary awards to maintain young people who continue their education after school leaving age. I regret that that complaint has been made. It is true that nowadays young people find it more difficult than ever before to take the alternative at 16-plus-one which was available under previous Governments—of taking up a job.
I was a lecturer in colleges of further education for a quarter of a century and I know that the granting of awards by local authorities varies considerably from one area to another. The young person of 16 who lives within the compass of a generous local authority will find that discretionary grants are available. But if he lives in an area that is covered by a less generous authority, which wishes to keep down the level of the rates for its better off ratepayers, he will find that they are not available. In the north-west, the Liverpool education authority under successive party regimes was always more generous than Chester, which was miserly over a long period.
As I have said, for many years the alternative to further education, that of getting a job, was available to young people. In my constituency and in many others in the area which I represent, that alternative is all too often denied to young people. The time has come for something more than YTS. The schemes lack real training and at the end there are only Mickey Mouse qualifications. These qualifications normally have no value to most employers. The youngsters are denied the right to gain the academic qualifications for which many of them are qualified and acceptable to colleges. It is the colleges and schools which should determine whether a pupil or a student is to be dead weight. They will decide, because they have the qualifications to be able to determine whether someone is qualified or otherwise to benefit from a course. "To benefit" is a term that should not be confined to the passing of examinations because a young person can benefit without passing exams.
The discretionary grant system has no uniformity. Some local authorities, such as Chester, were unwilling to provide grants to young people taking O and A-levels on either a part-time or full-time basis. Since the arrival of the Tory Government in 1979, authorities have become increasingly unable, not unwilling, to provide the education maintenance grants for young people. The system has become sporadic and uneven.
The Education Act 1944 enabled local authorities for the first time to make regulations which provided pupils with the advantage of being able to take education courses without hardship to themselves or to their parents and to make the most of the facilities available to them. But discretionary grants have provided no surety.
It is no use saying that young people who may be the products of disadvantaged homes or whose parents may be elderly or disabled, can turn to social security. Very often, when young people who have continued their education full time have gone to the Department of Health and Social Security and obtained benefit, as soon as it is discovered that they have been attending a school or college-especially a college of further education-that benefit has immediately been stopped.
On the one hand, local authorities have not been able to provide all the discretionary grants that are necessary. On the other, as soon as the young men or women who are not prepared to sit complacently at home and receive benefit from the DHSS cross the portals of a school or college, they find that social security is not open to them.
It is nearly 30 years since the Weaver committee on educational maintenance allowances stated:
The object throughout was to make it possible for any pupil to take full advantage of the facilities for full-time education open to him. The value of a longer school life was recognised and, as a means of ensuring that full value was obtained from secondary education, it was held tha maintenance allowances ought to be related to the child's wage-earning capacity.
The committee felt that those were good principles.
The Weaver committee was set up to review a wide range of local authority practice and to recommend a more rational basis for support on a national scale. Nearly 30 years ago, the committee recommended that there should be educational maintenance allowances at a rate of £65 a year for a 16-year-old boy or girl. That was about 25 per cent, of the then annual wage. Today, that would be about £2,000 a year. The Weaver committee believed that there should also be £20 a year for other welfare benefits such as free milk and meals.
It is no use the Government talking about £600 million. That sum would be well spent if it were spent on training people for real qualifications and if we were providing young people with the wherewithal to widen their scope for work in the community when the day comes — no doubt only with the next Labour Government — when jobs are available again. My advice to any young person, even under the present Tory regime, would be to do his or her best, during a period of unemployment, to get an education. I do not mean the Mickey Mouse education of the YTS, but real education.
In Japan, 91 per cent, of youngsters continue their education beyond school leaving age. In this country, according to the national child development study, the figure is 71 per cent, of ordinary children but only 41 per cent, of disadvantaged children.

Mr. Chris Patten: The hon. Gentleman has twice referred to the Mickey Mouse qualifications of those who graduate from youth training schemes. I hope that he does not speak for the Labour party, because that remark strikes me as a disgraceful slur on the tens of thousands of young people who have acquired very good qualifications through the YTS. I hope that the hon. Gentleman or one of his colleagues on the Labour Front Bench will make it clear that that is not the Labour party's view on those tens of thousands of young people and the worthwhile qualifications that they have achieved.

Mr. Wareing: In the area that I represent, the youth training scheme is seen as the Tory party's attempt to provide slave labour for employers. All too often, progressive local authorities have had to step up wage payments in order to give young people a reasonable living wage. What better qualifications can YTS offer which national certificates, O and A-levels or even the GCSE which the Government are introducing cannot?
Whereas in 1978–79 only 11 local education authorities made no awards of educational maintenance allowances, in 1982–83 no fewer than 26 made no such awards. There is no reason to believe, from the cuts that have been taking place in local government expenditure as a result of penalties, targets and punitive grant-related expenditure sanctions against progressive education authorities by the Government, that the number of local authorities providing reasonable discretionary grants has increased.
The Child Poverty Action Group has recently shown that, of 72 local education authorities in England and Wales, 13 awarded fewer than 100 grants annually, and the average maximum amount was less than the then £5·2:5 child benefit.
The Government are not concerned with the general run of young people aged 16 and over. They want to return us to the time when only those with money in their pockets could afford private education and a public education for those over the school leaving age. Only they will be catered for. The real talents of the next generation are being sacrificed on the altar of the class prejudices of the Prime Minister and her minions on the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I support the new clause. 1 accept the Government's challenge that the Labour party's problem is that it has to weigh up the considerable deadweight expenditure, but my experience is that a considerable number of pupils in their fourth and fifth years at school are being pushed into working, in particular in shops on Thursday, Friday and Saturday. Some of them are working to such an extent that they are not getting the full benefit from their studies. If some of them received an educational maintenance allowance, they might be persuaded not to work, which would then allow others who are unemployed to take on some of those jobs.
But if we have a problem in justifying what is called the deadweight cost, the Government must address themselves to the problem that not enough youngsters who get good, qualifications are staying in education.

Mr. Stephen Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman has posed a real problem. Is the Labour Front Bench committing the next Labour Government to the immediate introduction of educational maintenance allowance of the type that has been described as desirable and something that should happen?

Mr. Bennett: It is clear that we are committed to introducing educational maintenance allowances. We are firmly exploring the practicalities of those and the problem that the Government addresses, which is that they are expensive. We accept that, and that is why we are looking for solutions. Just as the Opposition are looking at ways of meeting those costs, the Government must offer an alternative and perhaps a cheaper way of solving the first problem which is that many youngsters who receive good qualifications at 16 do not stay on at school. In my constituency, 24 per cent. of those who received five or more 0-levels and who would benefit from remaining in full time education, leave. That is a brain drain which the country cannot afford. We must find solutions to persuade the majority of those youngsters to stay on at school or at college to further develop their skills and abilities for their benefit and for the benefit of the country.
10.45 pm
Clearly there are not enough youngsters from working class backgrounds staying on in education. The Government must also consider the fact that until 1983, more youngsters remained in education each successive year, while in the past three years youngsters have started to opt out of education at 16. There must be a reason for that. We believe that the reason is that if these youngsters go onto a youth training scheme—inadequate as some are and good as others are—they receive an allowance of £27 plus. They prefer the allowance to staying on at school.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) said, YTS is a Mickey Mouse scheme for many youngsters and it does not lead anywhere for great numbers of people. If these youngsters are lured away from education by the money, if the Government make YTS a two-year scheme and start to make the schemes work in some places in terms of providing qualifications, then more youngsters will leave school and go on to YTS. The Opposition will have to address the difficult problem of finding the resources for educational maintenance allowances, but the Government must provide an alternative solution to persuade more youngsters from areas such as Tyneside, the north-east and other areas where the proportion of those staying on in school is still too low, to stop on at school.
The Government must also consider the fact that YTS allowances are drawing youngsters into schemes away from school. I am certain that the House will return to this issue in the future on many occasions over the next few months. There is a feeling in the House that we want to make progress now. I suspect that if my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) can catch your eye Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the next moment or two, I am sure that he would seek leave to withdraw the new clause.

Mr. Radice: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3

ADDITIONAL CATEGORIES OF SCHOOL GOVERNORS

'The Secretary of State may prescribe one or more categories of persons who may be appointed governors of schools to which sections 3 and 4 above apply.'. — [Mr.Andrew F. Bennett.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 11 —Involvement of pupils in the governing body—
'In any school to which sections 3 and 4 above apply where that school admits pupils aged 16 years and over the governing body shall admit as observers to the governors' proceedings such members of the school council or other pupil-representatives as shall be specified in the articles of governance.'.
New clause 26—Pupil observers—
`Where the school admits pupils aged 16 years and over, the governing body shall admit two such pupils elected by the pupils over 16 in a secret ballot by proportional representation as observers and non-voting members of the governing body, subject to the articles of governance as may be adopted by the governing body to exclude pupil governors, from matters arising under sections 22 to 25 and 32 to 39 of this Act.'.
Amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 39, leave out subsections (2) to (6) and insert—
`(2) The instrument of government of such a school shall provide for the governing body to comprise equal numbers of—

(a) parent governors, including pupil representatives where the local education authority make a determination under subsection (5) below;
(b) staff governors, including at least one representative from the teaching staff and at least one representative from the support staff at the school;
(c) governors appointed by the local education authority, whether directly or on the nomination of a minor authority;
(d)

(i) co-opted governors and foundation governors in the case of a controlled school including at least one co-opted governor and at least one foundation governor;
(ii) co-opted governors in any other case.

(3) The overall number of members of a governing body to which this section applies shall be decided by the relevant local education authority, providing that no governing body shall have fewer than eight members.
(4) In determining the size of each governing body under subsection (3) of this section, the local education authority shall:

(i) undertake consultation with the headteacher, existing governors and, so far as practicable, parents of registered pupils at the school;
(ii) have regard to the desirability of a broadly uniform size of governing bodies in relation to the following categories of size of schools:


(a) less than 100 registered pupils;
(b) more than 99, but less than 300, registered pupils;
(c) more than 299, but less than 600, registered pupils;
(d) more than 599 registered pupils.

(5) The local education authority may determine, for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section, that one or more of the places to be allocated to parents' representatives on any governing body of a school admitting pupils at 16 years of age and over shall be allocated to pupil representatives providing that there shall be at least a majority of parents over pupil representatives in that category on any governing body.
(6) No representative shall be elected as a pupil representative under subsection (5) of this section unless he has attained the age of 16 years and any such election shall take place among pupils who have attained the same age.'.
Amendment No. 3, in line 39, leave out from 'school' to end of line 20 on page 5 and insert
'shall provide for a governing body to include—

(a) at least two parent governors;
(b) at least two governors appointed by the local education authority;
(c) at least two teacher governors;
(d) the head teacher, unless he chooses not to be a governor; and


(e) either—


(i) at least three co-opted governors, or
(ii) at least two foundation governors and at least one co-opted governor, in the case of a controlled school.'.

Amendment No. 4, in page 4, line 2, leave out '(and no others)'.
Amendment No. 5, in line 3, leave out 'two' and insert `four'.
Amendment No. 6, in line 6, after `(c)', insert 'at least'.
Amendment No. 8, in line 7, leave out '(d)' and insert `who shall be'.
Amendment No. 9, in line 16, leave out `(and no others)'.
Amendment No. 10, in line 17, leave out 'three' and insert 'six'.
Amendment No. 11, in line 20, after `(c)', insert 'at least'.
Amendment No. 12, in line 21, leave out 1d)' and insert 'who shall be'.
Amendment No. 13, in line 26, at end insert—
'(f) two pupil governors as observers, in the case of a school admitting pupils of 16 years of age and over.'.
Amendment No. 14, in line 30, leave out '(and no others)'.
Amendment No. 15, in line 31, leave out 'four' and insert 'eight'.
Amendment No. 16, in line 34, after `(c)' insert 'at least'.
Amendment No. 17, in line 35, leave out (d) and insert
`one of whom shall be'.
Amendment No. 18, in line 40, at end insert—
'(f) two pupil governors as observers, in the case of a school admitting pupils of 16 years of age and over.'.
Amendment No. 19, in page 5, line 3, leave out '(and no others)'.
Amendment No. 20, in line 5, leave out 'five' and insert `eight'.
Amendment No. 21, in line 8, after `(c)', insert, 'at least'.
Amendment No. 22, in line 9, leave out `(d)' and insert 'one of whom shall be'.
Amendment No. 23, in line 14, at end insert—
'(f) two pupil governors as observers, in the case of a school admitting pupils of 16 years of age and over.'.
No. 26, in line 20, at end insert—
'(8) In any school to which this section applies where that school is a sixth-form college the instrument of government may in addition include two pupil governors aged 16 years and over, subject to the exclusion of those pupil governors from matters arising under sections 22, 23, 33 to 39 of this Act.'.
No. 27, in line 20, at end insert—
'(8) In any school to which this section applies where that school admits pupils age 16 and over, the instrument of government may in addition inculde two pupils aged 16 years and over subject to the exclusion of those pupils from matters arising under sections 22, 23, 33 to 39 of this Act.'.
No. 31, in clause 4, page 6, line 21, at end insert—
'(7) In any school to which this section applies where that school is a sixth-form college, the instrument of government may in addition include two pupil governors aged 16 years and over, subject to the exclusion of those pupil governors from matters arising under sections 22, 23, 33 to 39 of this Act.'.
No. 32, in line 21, at end add—
'(7) In any school to which this section applies where that school admits pupils aged 16 and over, the instrument of government may in addition include two pupils aged 16 years and over subject to the exclusions of those pupils from matters arising under sections 22, 23, 33 to 39 of this Act.'.

No. 59, in clause 15, page 19, line 25, leave out `eighteen', and insert 'sixteen'.
No. 60, in line 26, at end insert
`or aged 16 and over if he is a registered pupil at the school at the date of his election or appointment'.
No. 180, in page 60, line 34, leave out Clause 56.
Government amendments Nos. 181 and 182.

Mr. Bennett: The new clause takes us directly back to matters in the Bill. It seeks to provide a measure of flexibility. The amendments that accompany the clause address the problems which the Opposition believe are contained in the Government's scheme.
We were a little unhappy that the Government, having passed the Education Act 1980, which set up new provisions for governing bodies, shortly afterwards produced a Green Paper in which they suggesteded conferring greater powers on parents in relation to governing bodies and reducing the powers of almost everyone else. We felt that the Government were rather premature. In producing their Green Paper they took evidence on the position that applied before the 1980 Act was implemented, rather than on what had happened.
Many people believed that the 1980 Act resulted in a very good partnership on the new governing bodies between parents and teachers, the local authority and the co-opted representatives. All the evidence showed that the Government had gone overboard in their attempt to increase the number of parents on governing bodies and that the balance was not right. We welcome the fact that the Government have sought to improve the balance.
If governing bodies are to work, there has to be a partnership between parents and teachers, the local authority and the co-opted representatives. They must work together. Unfortunately, because of the way in which the Bill has been drafted, there will be conflict. The number of teachers on governing bodies is to be reduced. That is not the best way to obtain their co-operation. There is absolutely no reason for the Government not to maintain a slightly higher teacher representation on the governing bodies.
We have approached this aspect in a number of ways. Amendment No. 2 proposes that representation should be in four parts. Amendment No. 3 proposes that state schools should adopt the same formula as applies to voluntary and state-aided schools.
The Government ought to allow greater teacher representation on governing bodies. In small schools, where teachers have only one representative on the governing body, there will be occasions when that individual will be unable to be present at meetings. Teachers will then be completely unrepresented. It is an advantage if somebody is present at meetings, not necessarily formally to second a resolution, but to nod agreement, thus signifying that that is the view not just of one person but that it is supported by others. [Interruption.] That is a fact. Governing bodies are concerned with obtaining a consensus, not with obtaining decisions and taking votes. Narrow majority votes on governing bodies—a win of three to two, or 231 to 230 — will not produce solutions. The Secretary of State seems to be amused by all this. My impression was that he was quite relieved by the result of the vote. Governing bodies should not be pressed into taking decisions as a result of votes. We want consensus on governing bodies. Greater teacher representation would help to achieve that aim.
There has also been an experiment in which pupils have participated as school governors. The evidence is that that experiment has worked well. In our Second Reading and Committee debates the Government could not provide a single example of unsuccessful pupil governors, or of pupil governors who had caused problems. It would be worth while if the Government were to introduce sufficient flexibility to allow pupil governors to participate on governing bodies.
Many local authorities have also allowed ancillary staff to be represented on governing bodies. It will cause considerable resentment in towns such as Sheffield if ancillary staff—those who provide dinners, or who work in the office, or caretakers — are pushed off the governing bodies. That is not the way to achieve cooperation and consensus. A flexible approach would allow pupils and ancillary staff to serve as governors, and it would also provide for greater teacher representation.
Even at this late stage I plead with the Government to introduce flexibility. The reforms carried out in 1980 have worked in the majority of local authority areas. The governing bodies have settled down and in most cases have produced partnership rather than conflict. It would be sad if, as a result of the passage of this Bill and the removal from governing bodies of the groups that I have mentioned, we produced a situation worse than the present one.

Mr. Christopher Chope: I should like to speak briefly to amendments Nos. 10, 12, 15, 17, 20 and 22 which are in my name. These amendments would increase the number of parent governors and reduce the number of teacher governors by one where the head teacher chose to be a governor. The effect would he to give parents a bigger say. Indeed, the amendments would give parents the majority say on all governing bodies before co-options were carried out.
The route towards greater parent power is popular with parents and with people who are concerned about quality in our education system. I can see no reason why we should not have the courage of our convictions and decide to trust the parents by giving them a majority on the governing bodies. A whole series of safeguards are written into other parts of the Bill and for that reason the Government ought to have the courage to give majority power to the parents.
Parent governors already make a valuable contribution to our schools but in the smaller schools the Bill would restrict the number of parent governors to two. That is too restrictive because we know that many parents are overawed, if not diffident, about the way in which schools are run. As a result, some of them get involved on governing bodies only when their children have been pupils for some years. By increasing the number of parent governors we would increase the scope and the opportunity for parents to become involved at an earlier stage.
I appreciate that, because the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) is trying to pull the Government in one direction and I am trying to pull them in the opposite direction, my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to say that he has the balance about right. I hope this will give him an opportunity to explain why the Government do not yet feel able to give parents a majority say on all governing bodies.

Mr. Weetch: I should like to speak to amendment No. 2.
The section of the Bill that deals with governors and governor representation gives teachers a raw deal. I understand why that is so, but I do not understand why the Government have made no serious attempt to put it right. If this Bill passes without major surgery, governing bodies will emerge according to a standard pattern. I am not opposed to more of a pattern, but I am opposed to this pattern. The statistical pattern of representation on governing bodies in their new shape shows that, as the school grows, teacher representation will be at a bigger proportional disadvantage.
In a school with up to 99 pupils, the first category mentioned in the Bill, teacher representation is one, plus the headmaster. As the school increases in size to 600 or more pupils, the parent representation is increased from two to five, the local education authority representation is increased from two to five, the co-opted representation is increased from three to six, but the teacher representation goes from one to two. There is no justice in that and it is a poor way to establish, or shall I say re-establish, the partnership that must exist if education is to succeed. I am talking about the partnership of parents, the local education authority, central Government and the teachers.
Amendment No. 2 says that there shall be a principle of equality of representation, with
equal numbers of … parent governors . … staff governors … governors appointed by the local education authority ….co-opted governors".
All through, there is equality of representation. I know that in this world, one cannot get mathematically equal representation without some other distortion, but as the pattern of represenation exists now, teachers have a raw deal. The nature and numbers of their representation are unjust.
11 pm
I shall not take too much more of the time of the House, because, unfortunately, I have already lost this argument. I was not impressed with the case that the Government put up in Committee against increasing teacher representation. I should like to hear the answer from the Minister, to see whether the Government have a sense of shame about the whole matter. The professional teacher organisations are dissatisifed with the gross under-representation of professional teachers, and have every reason to be so. One can see at a glance that this is unjust, and I hope that even at this late stage, the Government will put the matter right.

Mr. Geoff Lawler: I wish to speak on new clause 26 and amendments Nos. 13 18 and 23, which stand in my name. Through these, I wish to change what is already a permissive sanction of allowing student governors as observers into a mandatory one. To do otherwise allows governing bodies to object to, and deny opportunities for, young people to participate. For what reasons do they do so? Is it because young people have nothing worth contributing? Is it because young people have nothing to say that is worth listening to? Is it part of our educational philosophy to treat young people as irresponsible? Do we give them an education, and then say that they are not capable of using it in a responsible way? If so that is an indictment of the education that they have


received. By making this a permissive sanction, we are seen to condone such arguments, which is why I wish that it were a mandatory sanction.
Perhaps if we had listened more to the view of students before, we should have done something much earlier about what is seen by many to be the irrelevant last two or three years of school life, and could have stemmed some of the disillusionment that has come from that. It is not unreasonable that the client group should have a say in the service that it is receiving. If it is accepted that pupils have a view, governing bodies should hear it.
Is not participating an education in itself, not only for those young people who are governors, but for those who elect the governors, and so all those involved in the democratic process? This is recognised by the Government, and has been recognised by my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State in his response to the Thompson report. He said:
The Secretary of State believes that a service which is concerned with the personal development of young people must seek to encourage their involvement in decision taking, and in accepting the implication of those decisions".
At the first conference of Ministers responsible for youth in Strasbourg, recommendations endorsed by the Government include:
enhance a dialogue between young people and public authorities at all levels on issues that concern their lives, such as education".
There was another recommendation to
encourage the participation of young people in the decision-making process in areas that concern them".
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, speaking at a conference on participation in November of last year said:
I therefore stress my belief in participation.
Those are fine words, and tonight we have an opportunity to apply them and to allow young people to participate in something that definitely affects them—their education. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister referred to his dislike of having two tiers of governors or second-class governors. But If there are only two classes on a train, it is surely better to be travelling second class than to be left behind. As governors with speaking rights but no voting rights, as I advocate, students could make a major contribution to discussions on those governing bodies. They could make their views known to the governors who are making the decisions, and could thus ensure that their views are taken into account by them.
Of course there are sensitive areas in which student governors should not be involved, and that is covered by the amendment. It is not impractical to exclude student governors from such discussions. My hon. Friend the Minister referred to young people going in and out of the room like yo-yos. As the president of a students' union, I was heavily involved in discussions on university committees, and the matter was simply dealt with by having two parts to the agenda: the first involving student representatives, and the second involving reserved business, where students were asked to leave the room. I see no reason why a similar structure should not apply to school governors' meetings.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: When I was chairman of a board of governors I found that our pupil governors were only interested in the bits from which they were excluded, and did not speak on any other subject. Will my hon. Friend take that into account?

Mr. Lawler: It is a bit difficult to speak on a subject when one has been excluded from the meeting. As a student participant, I was often very interested in the matters on the reserved part of the agenda, but I recognisd that they were not entirely appropriate for me to be involved in. I think, for example, of disciplinary matters relating to students, or matters relating to university staff. That is why I seek to exclude student governors from similar discussions on school governing bodies.
I argue that student governors may not be able to play a full part but should at least be able to play a part. It might be argued that we need only have school councils in schools. I recommend setting up such councils in schools, because they have a role to play. That is particularly true for the younger pupils, as they give practice at participation and democracy. But all school councils are only talking shops. In most schools there is no direct link between them and the governing bodies, and no direct input. That is why we need student governors as observers on the governing body.
My hon. Friend the Minister has spoken about a yob society emerging from our education system. One factor that contributes towards that is the feeling of alienation experienced by young people because they believe that no one listens to them. They believe that no one thinks that they have anything to contribute. Consequently, it is not surprising that they feel frustrated. As Hargreaves said in his report
it is clear from the fifth form survey that a further cause of disaffection amongst some pupils is their gradually accommodated conviction that they have no real voice in matters of school policies and decision-making pertaining to the curriculum, distribution of resources, the physical environment and rules and sanctions.
One important role of education is to ensure that young people do not feel alienated and are taught how to be involved in decision-making processes and are allowed to get the most out of them.
In that way the governing bodies too would have much to gain, because they would have the benefit of young people participating.
My hon. Friend the Minister has already accepted most of my points.
As he said in Committee:
I stress that we recognise that it is desirable for senior pupils to be involved in the work of a governing body". —[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 19 June 1986; c. 86.]
If my hon. Friend recognises that it is important that young people should be involved as observers in the role of our governing bodies, he should ask all schools to participate. Governing bodies and young people will benefit from the contribution that they have to make.

Mr. Freud: The lead new clause of this group is new clause 3, on additional categories of governors. Those of us who were fortunate enough to serve on the Committee, and who spent 15 sessions arguing about that, very much welcome the new voices that we hear on Report. I have considerable sympathy for the new clause that has just been spoken to by the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Lawler).
The alliance position is that, while involvement and institution-based governorships are all very well and much better than nothing, the fundamental principle should be that of qualification by age. Although new clause 11 argues for involvement only and amendment Nos. 26 and


31 argue for governors in sixth form colleges, they are not the most desirable positions, although perhaps the best that we are able to get.
Our argument is that, having accepted the principle of pupil governorship in our own amendments to clause 56, on pupil governorship in colleges of further education, the Minister of State should apply the principle consistently throughout education. That consistency should either be on the principle of common factors between institutions as the basis, or of age as the basis. I do not believe that one FE college should have it, and, in the same town, a comprehensive or sixth form college should not.
It is illogical if some 16-year-olds are eligible and others are not. The institution attended does not seem a relevant way of dividing them up. It is incumbent on the Minister of State, having accepted the principle of pupil governorship, to defend the dividing line that he is seeking to draw. It is weak in the extreme, not least because of the arbitrariness of the provision that I mentioned earlier, to claim that students in further education colleges are magically and automatically wiser and more mature than those in other institutions.
When I asked the Minister of State in Committee whether he genuinely believed that, he answered with the memorable line, "I am saying what I have said."
If lines between 16-years-olds are to be drawn, the alliance wants as many young people as possible to be on the side of the angels, and thus to include those at sixth form colleges. There are overwhelming arguments in favour of statutory pupil involvement, not least that many local education authorities already include them. The Government have not produced a shred of evidence that those governors do not work well. In addition, educational evidence suggests that involvement is always a good thing.
Michael Rutter, in "15,000 Hours", wrote:
It appears that the schools' giving of responsibility … plays a part in developing an overall school climate, which itself helps to shape pupil behaviour".
He also observed that children tend to live up or down to the expectations that teachers and schools have of them. That message clearly got through to the Minister of State when he spoke recently about the need to expect more of able children. Rutter continued:
the message of confidence that the pupils can be trusted to act with maturity and responsibility is likely to encourage pupils to fulfil those expectations".
David Hargreaves of ILEA — transposed as David Hargreaves of India in the Committee Hansard—in his report, "Improving Secondary Schools", also wrote of the benefits of general involvement, saying:
schools which involve people in their running are 'better schools' with better discipline and spirit, and in some better examination results … It is clear from the fifth form survey that a further cause of disaffection amongst some pupils is gradually accumulated conviction that they have no real voice in matters of school policies and decision making pertaining to the curriculum, distribution of resources, the physical environment and rules and sanctions.
I am sorry to take time on Report on something that I pointed to in Committee, but I am desperately disappointed, as the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said in Committee, that the Minister has taken some account of the argument and given us such an extraordinarily legally fallacious resolution.
11.15 pm
In France, each secondary school has a conseil d'établissement. In West Germany, schools have a schulkonferenz which has decision-making powers on discipline and daily routine. There is no questioning the fact that the schools in France and West Germany benefit from these bodies. I do not understand why the Minister is holding out from introducing this in Britain.
Thus, on the grounds of educating young people for citizenship and for participation in democracy, involving the real consumers of education and encouraging maturity among pupils, as well as avoiding the alienation which is all too common in some young people, there are excellent reasons for extending the principle, accepted by the Government in FE colleges, and applying it throughout education above the age of 16.
The recent Gillick judgment has implications for the issue of pupil governors, as it involved the concept of increasing quasi-legal responsibility for young people. In giving that judgment, Lord Scarman, sensibly observed, that the capacity of a young person to
make his or her own decision depends upon the minor having sufficient understanding and intelligence to make the decision and is not to be determined by reference to any judicially fixed age limit.
The Government, having accepted the case for pupil governors in the FE institutions, should accept them for all institutions — sixth form colleges and all. The Government's position on FE institutions is not tenable without also permitting pupil governors elsewhere. If the Government accept the wider principle of pupil governors per se, they have to accept them given the application of the most relevant criterion, which is that of age.
The alliance amendments allow the governing bodies to exclude the young people from certain matters. I totally agree with the hon. Member for Bradford, North,who also referred to this. As the chairman of a court of a university I know that it is perfectly normal to have business below the line when the press and when certain members leave the court. It does not mean that pupil governors are second class but it does mean that they are on board. The amendments recognise that there are things which it would not be proper for pupil governors to discuss, but it recognises that pupils have a legitmate place regarding other matters before a governing body.
The fact that the new governing bodies will have more matters under their remit than existing ones is not a strong reason for deliberately excluding from them the consumers of education. Pupils have a legitimate point of view and can often bring a fresh opinion to matters which concern them directly.
There is a huge difference between being an observer and speaking when one is spoken to and being a full member and having the right to bring up matters of one's own accord. Education should include learning about decision taking and representation and it is difficult to believe that the Government do not recognise their duty to do something about this in the Bill.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I wish to speak in support of the amendments which have been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope)—amendments Nos. 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17, 20 and 22.
These amendments are crucial. It is disappointing in a Bill which has done so much to increase accountability to parents and choice in education that we should be


considering the composition of the governing bodies in such a way as will result in the continued domination of the producer interest. The amendments would achieve a far better balance. At the moment, the number of parents governors is matched by the number of governors appointed by the local education authority.
My hon. Friend is looking at me rather quizzically, but people appointed by the local authority are the representatives of the administrators and the producer side of education. Teachers and head teachers are in the same category. Parents, even allowing for the co-opted governors, are clearly outnumbered on those governing bodies.
If one thing is common ground on this side of the House, it is that one of the biggest problems in our schools is that they have long since ceased to represent the interests of parents and their children. They have been captured by the producer interest. That is reflected in the debate. It is one of the reasons why we hear constantly about inputs in to education, pupil-teacher ratios, the amount being spent on schools, the amount being spent on salaries, and teachers' duties, terms and conditions, and very little about the end product—the achievement of children.
The amendments are important. Parents should have representation and be able to make their voice heard. I know that some people will say that it is difficult to get parents interested in being governors, or that only certain types of parent will become involved.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is difficult to get some parents to become governors because of the lack of power exercised by governing boards? Does he agree that, if they had more control over finances, staffing and maintenance, more people, and people of a higher calibre, would be attracted?

Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend has taken the argument out of my mouth. He has obviously thought about the matter carefully. I agree with him. Even if the Bill does not go as far as my hon. Friend would like in transferring power to governors, it goes a great deal further than has been possible hitherto. My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on that. It would be a pity if, at the last jump, we were to lose the opportunity to strengthen the parents' role on boards and to give them the opportunity to participate with increased powers and responsibilities.
I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the amendments. They are important. If parent governors are always to be outnumbered by the vested interests and the professionals, it will be hard to get people of good calibre to serve on the boards.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I do not bring to the debate the experience that members of the Committee gained—I am sure that they are knowledgeable on these matters—I bring a more simple, but still relevant, approach.
I ponder occasionally on what I think is a special problem. It concerns what is happening in inner cities, especially with regard to governorships of schools. During the past few days, there have been some difficulties in a part of London where a governor was appointed to a school. The appointment has attracted adverse publicity in the press. Some people might wish to make political advantage out of that. It demonstrates, however, a major problem to which all political parties should address

themselves. What is going on in schools and who are being made governors? What type of people are becoming governors as political appointments?
I have come to the view that the party hack often has very little to contribute. I am not saying that I would want boards of governors to be dominated by Tories. On the contrary, there are many people of my political persuasion who would never normally surface and become available for selection as governors. Such people should surface, especially in inner-city areas. They should make an effort to be appointed because only they, working with progressive elements in local authorities, can make important and necessary changes. We do not solve the problems of education simply by throwing money at the processes of education. We solve them by bringing new ideas into the consideration of all the issues as school governors make decisions.
I hope that Ministers, in observing the case that occurred in south London recently, will accept that excesses exist on all sides. Everything must be done to see that governors of the highest quality are appointed, as that will help to ensure that we are not faced with that type of embarrassment again.
What occurred in that case is part of a minority problem, in the main geared to the inner cities. There are great swathes of the country in which there is great competition among people who want to be school governors. In my constituency there is even competition in my party among people seeking nomination to be appointed school governors, and I am sure that the same applies to other parties and that the competition extends to parents and teachers. That occurs because people appreciate the great contribution that governors can play, particularly in local communities.
I say that because in many constituencies, particularly in rural ones, schools are the focus of community endeavour. The community spirit in some areas is centred round the educational establishment in the same way as in other communities it is centred round the local church and parish hall. That is why the Government should heed carefully the views of those who participate in the work of parish and town councils.
In an unashamedly constituency way, I draw the attention of hon. Members to correspondence that I have received from the members of governing bodies of schools in my constituency and members of parish councils. The people in question are deeply concerned about some aspects of the Bill and have asked me to intervene in the hope that the Government will realise that they are set on a dangerous course that could undermine the position of many governing bodies.
My correspondent from Papcastle parish council —Papcastle is near the town of Cockermouth, which borders the Lake District—writes under the heading:
Minor authority representation on boards of governors — Bridekirk/Dovenby School and Fairfield School, Cockermouth.
The letter reads:
The above matter has been the cause of concern for the Parish Council for some time. The last Instrument of Government has resulted in the Parish Council relinquishing its minor authority representation on the Board of Governors of Bridekirk/Dovenby School and has been the cause of a `fight' with Cockermouth Town Council over a place on the Board of Governors of Fairfield School in Cockermouth. We understand that the Education Bill, which proposes to reduce the number of governors yet again, is under discussion in the House of Commons. This is of grave concern to the Parish


Council and I have today written to the Secretary of State for Education giving the Parish Council's view on the matter. I should be obliged if you would consider the above points when the Bill is being discussed.
That cannot be described as a politically motivated letter. It represents the view of people of all political persuasions who are concerned about the effect of the Bill on the number of governors who can be appointed.
A letter from the Bridekirk Dovenby school governing body, signed by Mrs. Meredyth Bell, chairman of the school governors, states:
We are governors of Bridekirk Dovenby Primary School, which is in your constituency, and we are a voluntary controlled school. We understand that the proposed changes in the 1986 Education Bill concern, among other things, a reduction in the number of school governors from 12 to nine.
I am sure that the Minister would have risen to correct me if the writer of that letter was wrong. She goes on:
We are totally against this proposal, as our particular school represents four parishes, all of which were in the past guaranteed an effective voice on the governing body following the closure of their own local schools.
The Minister knows what we are talking about. We have had to rationalise primary education, and local authorities and Ministers have had to take difficult decisions. They have been fought, and we all know of the arguments to and fro, the appeals and the representations to Departments. At the end of the day local authorities have taken decisions and given undertakings, mainly about the nature of representation on boards of governors to secure continuity within particular communities.
11.30 pm
Mrs. Bell continues:
This promise has been totally disregarded and the proposed changes are calculated to undermine the support and influence of the rural communities involved. We would be grateful if you could let us know your own views on this subject and whether there is any chance of influencing this part of the proposed Education Bill.
Those letters were unsolicited by me and came from people without political motivation. They are putting a simple case to Parliament and saying, "Why reduce the number of school governors? Give us a chance. Let local authorities keep to the undertakings given when our schools were closed."
I hope that the Minister will reply specifically to those letters tonight. The local newspapers in Workington regard these matters as of great importance, and if his words tonight are pearls of wisdom, he will be well reported. They await what he has to say and I hope that he will address himself specifically to these great concerns which are being legitimately expressed by people in west Cumbria.

Mr. Alan Howarth: I rise to support the amendments in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) and for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). I am sure that the remark of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) that party hacks have little to offer governing bodies will have struck a chord throughout the House. That is probably at the root of these amendments.
We fear that the Government's proposed structure for governing bodies will allow the vested interests which are producers to predominate. We do not believe that this is the correct emphasis. Many parents are becoming upset at having to take what is on offer and dished out by the

present governing bodies where the local education authority has a monopoly. The Bill does not tip the balance in favour of parents.
Schools should not be run for the benefit of teachers or local politicians. There is increasing evidence that the malign influence of politicians and, to a lesser extent, of local education authorities, is causing grave anxiety among parents and, in some cases, is an affront to them. In Haringey, for example, we hear that the council's new lesbian and gay unit is advising schools and colleges to develop courses to promote positive images of lesbians and gays, and to submit proposals by the end of this month. That type of development is thoroughly objected to by parents, but they have little choice because they do not have a controlling interest on the governing body. In a school in my constituency parents have even been dissuaded by the headmaster from having a parent-teacher association. That is the wrong approach and would be rejected throughout the House.
Many people tend to forget that education is not free. Parents may not pay directly by cheque to their local education authority, but they pay for it. I believe that parents are in a position to know what is best for their children, and that education is too important to be left to educationists.
Further evidence that the education system is not working and that all is not well, with grave concern that schools are not performing under the present system, comes from a MORI poll to be published next week. It was commissioned by the Audit Commission, which audits value-for-money in local services. Only 31 per cent. of those interviewed were happy with the standards of secondary education. That demonstrates that there is dissatisfaction, and that so long as we operate a system in which the consumers — the parents — are not given a major say we shall not begin to tackle the problems in our schools. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to accept the amendments moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen, for in this way we shall be able to give parents more power, and they will be able to take tougher action, to produce better schools.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I should like to say a few words, particularly in support of the remarks made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) and also the speech of the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Lawler).
In this House, we frequently enact good laws and, I suspect, frequently bad or muddled laws, but since the European Court of Human Rights started to exert its influence on the laws of this country, as we saw earlier this evening, we have from time to time enacted laws that are plain wrong.
I have a specific question for the Minister of State tonight, which I hope he will deal with in due course. Is the Minister of State satisfied — are the Government satisfied — that the proposals in relation to pupil governors in further education colleges as compared with the lack of pupil governors in schools will pass muster if it is challenged in the European Court of Human Rights?
The proposals lack logic. If a 16-year-old at a further education college is good enough to be a governor of that college and take a minority role in the decisions affecting that college, at least so far as they concern interests that


can be legitimately dealt with by pupil governors, why on earth cannot pupils in sixth forms of high schools be governors of those schools?
Indeed, it could be argued that high school sixth form pupils over the age of 16 play a far more significant role in the management of their schools than their counterparts in further education colleges. One could go further and say that we know of many cases in which pupils of 16 to 18 have gone to further education colleges because they have failed examinations and were unable to stay on in the sixth form of their schools, whereas their colleagues, who have passed examinations, are able to stay at school; yet the latter are to be deprived of the right to be governors of those schools. That is manifestly absurd and illogical.
I hope that the legal point has been carefully considered by the Government and I look forward to the Minister's assurance that it has been. Let us assume, as is likely, that a case is taken through the courts of this country on behalf of a pupil who wishes to be a governor of his or her school, and thereafter to the European Court of Human Rights. Will that court uphold the decision that the Government appear to be determined upon tonight? If not, we shall face yet another of those decisions one example of which led to the Interception of Communications Act 1985 on telephone tapping; another related to corporal punishment, which has been debated tonight.
It would do the Government and the people of this country little service if this legal problem — this is a serious question that I am putting to the Minister—were brushed aside in the hope that it will go away.

Mr. Chris Patten: This is an important group of new clauses and amendments that is directed to the composition of governing bodies. Its aim principally is to alter the key provisions in clause 3, either by substituting a new formula for the composition of governing bodies or by modifying the Bill's present proposals. I think that all of us who had the enjoyable experience of sitting through the Committee could be forgiven for a sense of déjà vu in considering the new clauses and amendments, because we gave most of the issues a pretty heavy bashing in Committee. It is always pleasant, however, to take a second tour.
I hope that the speech of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) will receive the coverage in the Workington Bugle which it undoubtedly deserves. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of governors and the contribution which they have to make. I agree wholeheartedly with him that there is no place for party hacks on school governing bodies. The effect of the Bill's provisions on the south London school to which he referred would be to reduce political nominees from about 12 to three. This should encourage local education authorities to be a good deal more discriminating in whom they appoint.
The hon. Member for Workington spoke of two particular instances, and he has correspondence on them. I shall, of course, consider these cases. The Bill preserves the minimum position that was established by the 1980 Act. I suggest that minor authority representatives, valuable though they are, no longer have to represent the community given the increased parental representation. Nevertheless, we shall address ourselves to the two instances to which the hon. Gentleman referred if he will allow us to do so.
Our aim in the Bill, as we said on a number of occasions in Committee, is to create vigorous governing bodies that will be the focus for that individuality and sense of purpose that are the invariable hallmarks of a successful school. As an integral part of this aim, we want governing bodies to be the means of encouraging and harnessing greater parental influence and involvement in the way that their children's schools develop as part of local provision. That point was addressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope). I shall respond later to his other remarks.
Consequently, we see it as essential that each governing body should, as necessary, be able to speak for the school and the wider community it serves with a voice that is separate and distinct from — though obviously informed by—the professionals in the maintaining LEA on the one hand and the staff in the school on the other. At the same time, we need to ensure that governing bodies are reasonably compact so that they can discharge their important functions effectively. If size were no object, there might well be other categories of person who might usefully be represented. But we want and need effective bodies and not mere talking shops.
The outcome of all these considerations is the carefully balanced formulae in clauses 3 and 7. Tailored to the size of school, these remove the scope for LEAs to appoint the majority of governors. They strengthen the parental voice and retain the representation of other key interests guaranteed by the 1980 Act. This is not as rigid as the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) was suggesting, but that is a point which is often wilfully misrepresented. The Bill allows a substantial degree of flexibility through the category of co-opted governors. But that flexibility is in the hands of the governing body itself. It is not to be imposed by the LEA in making the school's instrument of government. We shall trust the governors to decide what additional expertise they wish to add.
As I have said, our main aim is to set up governing bodies that are separate and distinct from LEAs on the one hand and teachers on the other. The local partnership which makes for successful schools exists principally not in the governing body itself but in the interaction of the governing body, the head teacher and the LEA, all within the framework of functions proposed in part 111. I must emphasise that these functions have been carefully designed to complement the composition proposals in part II. They would probably have to look different if the composition were significantly changes.
11.45 pm
The partnership to which I have referred cannot work effectively if the governing body is, as one of the partners, dominated by the others. This is why the Bill removes the LEA's majority. Given that the LEA is at arm's length from the school it seemed right to give it a share of governorships equal to that for elected parents. By the very nature of their work, however, teachers are intimately involved in the day-to-day life of the school. While their voice should clearly be heard on the governing body, our judgment is that more than the provision proposed — which continues the representation guaranteed for the first time under our 1980 Act — would give them a disproportionate influence in the overall local partnership. That is in no way to denigrate teachers whose expertise is obviously crucial to the success of schools. Indeed, it is


worth pointing out that, as governing bodies will be generally smaller under this Bill than previously, the teachers' voice will be proportionately stronger.
The plain fact is that the Opposition amendments generally demonstrate a fundamental disagreement between their movers and the Government over our reasoning and the conclusions that I have just outlined. I have heard nothing that has even begun to persuade me that the Government's very carefully considered conclusions in this key area are wrong. Indeed, I am more than over convinced of their soundness as a means of reinvigorating our schools. I point out again in passing—not hoping to bring Opposition Members to their feet—that the Opposition are on the one hand obsessed with increasing the involvement of this or that group on the governing body and, on the other hand, move amendments at the drop of a hat to limit the powers of governing bodies.
Amendments Nos. 5, 10, 15, 20, 8, 12, 17 and 22 were moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) and referred to by my hon. Friends the Members for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) and for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth). The amendments aim to strengthen parental representation. The Government have been persuaded—and now firmly believe—that an equal balance of places between the LEA and the parents is the right way to make progress. That was not our original view. When the Green Paper was discussed, long before I had anything to do with these weighty matters, the Government came to another conclusion. However, after taking account of the representations from parents and bodies representing parents we came to the conclusion that equal weight should be given to parents and LEAs.
The provisions of clauses 28 and 29 will also strengthen the accountability of the governing body to the parent body as a whole through the annual report and parents' meeting. We could not accept the proposed reduction in the number of teacher governors.

Mr. Alan Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and his colleagues for giving weight to the representations received from parents. Many of us would be interested to know what finally persuaded him to come down in favour of a balance between the LEA and the parents, rather than a predominance of parents.

Mr. Chris Patten: I wish that I could answer that question as directly as my hon. Friend has asked it. The decision — the correct decision, I believe — to favour equal weighting was taken by my right hon. and hon. Friends when they drafted the White Paper "Better Schools". In that respect, the Bill faithfully reflects the views expressed in "Better Schools". As I said several times in Committee, I think that we have struck the right balance in the composition of the governing body and—as could not be said of the amendments moved regularly by the Opposition—between the composition and the functions of the new governing bodies.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for, albeit reluctantly, giving way. I had rather hoped that he would have had the courtesy to answer a specific question which I put to him. He has not and so I shall put it again. Has the hon. Gentleman taken and received

advice on whether what is proposed will satisfy the requirements of the European Convention, and, if so, on what grounds will it do so?

Mr. Patten: I knew that I should not have given way to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I shall come to precisely that point in the course of my remarks after I have referred to the amendments moved by his ever-courteous hon. Friend, the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud).
New clauses 11 and 26 and amendments Nos. 26, 27, 31, 32, 60, 13, 18 and 23 seek to involve pupils more in school government either as observers or as governors proper. The Government fully accept — again, we had these debates in Committee — that it is desirable for senior pupils to be involved in some way in the work of the governing body. We have agreed to include guidance on this in the post-Act circular. This could well he done through observerships but there are other ways of achieving this, perhaps through separate meetings with selected groups, which would avoid observers having to keep bobbing in and out depending on the item under discussion.
However, I can see nothing in new clause 11 which would actually enable a governing body to require such observers to leave during particular items of business. Generally, it would be wrong to compel governing bodies to admit pupils or, indeed, any other observers to their meetings, though I repeat the undertaking to advise governing bodies that they should explore ways, and observerships will be one of them, of involving senior pupils and other persons as they think fit in their work.
I listened with considerable interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Lawler) developing his arguments on that point. I realise that he will be disappointed by the fact that my reply this evening is exactly the same as my reply on several occasions in Committee and I am sorry that we disagree on that point. To repeat myself, there is a strong case against second class governors coming in and out of meetings according to what is on the agenda. However, I repeat what I have said about the guidance that we shall be giving to local education authorities and governing bodies about the relationship with pupils.
Amendment No. 59 to clause 15 would allow persons aged 16 and over to be governors in any category. In this clause and in clause 56, to which I shall come shortly, we are not resting on our long-held opinion that a school or college governor holds an office of public or pecuniary trust. Such an office maynot be held by a minor. We accept that there are contrary legal opinions; that is why we have taken the opportunity to put the matter beyond doubt. I see no case for allowing LEAs to appoint 16-year-olds, as has happened, as their representatives on school governing bodies. It may be argued that 18 is an arbitrary age, but it has good legal precedents, I must remind the House again that we are giving school governors new and enhanced powers. School governorship will not be a soft option.
I therefore ask the House to reject amendment No. 59 and, for the same reason, amendment No. 180 which seeks to delete clause 56 on the minimum age for governors in further education. Given the different nature, structure and traditions of institutional government in further education and the more adult environment of that sector, however, the Government have been persuaded to make


an exception to the rule in clause 56 in the case of a governor who is a student of the college concerned. This concession must, however, be safeguarded.
There are matters, such as the appointment, promotion and discipline of staff where it would not be appropriate for a student to be involved. Amendments Nos. 181 and 182, which honour our Committee stage undertaking, therefore provide for regulations to specify the circumstances and the degree in which the participation of student governors at meetings should be limited. The notion of "reserved business" in further education is not new. Many instruments already contain provisions which will meet the new regulations' requirements.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) raised a particular point, which he came back to in an intervention, about the impact of the European Convention on Human Rights. We were not remotely aware that any problem such as he suggested existed. I should be interested to know which specific provision of the convention he had in mind and any point that he cares to bring to our attention we shall look into. However, I do not think that there is a problem such as he identified.
In conclusion, I commend Government amendments Nos. 181 and 182 to clause 56. However, I must ask the House to reject the other amendments in this group in favour of retaining the carefully constructed composition provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: It is not surprising that the Government have not changed their view. We heard the same disappointing answers in Committee. I hope that when the Minister and the Secretary of State go to the Tory party conference and announce proudly that they facilitated the ending of corporal punishment in schools and get a standing ovation for that, they will recognise that although the traditional Tory party conference gesture of allowing a 16 or 17-year-old to get to the rostrum to praise the Government's record will be made, under the Bill they will deny that youngster the right to serve on a governing body. It is a sad reflection on the Government's belief in democracy that they cannot allow a 16 or 17-year-old to participate in a governing body.
I do not think that we will be able to persuade the Government to change their mind by pursuing the matter to a Division. However, I hope that the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Lawler) will consider pressing his amendment No. 13 when it comes up for consideration. Perhaps, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will allow a Division on this amendment so that the House can express a clear wish that it would like to see pupil governors appointed as observers. I do not suggest that we vote on the amendment tonight. The amendment will be much later in our consideration of the Bill, and I do not think that we will come to it later tonight. Indeed, we may not come to it until October.
The Minister might get a few messages at the party conference, one of which might be to ask him to allow the appointment of pupil governors. After the conference he might be able to rectify the position either by supporting amendment No. 13, or even by the Government tabling their own amendment to provide for pupil governors. As we would not achieve that as a result of a vote on new clause 3, I hope that I shall have the leave of the House to withdraw the motion in a moment or two, in the hope that we can have a vote on amendment No. 13 later. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

SCHOOL MEALS

'It shall be the duty of local education authorities:

(a) to provide, on every school day, for every pupil in county, controlled or maintained schools who want it, a mid-day meal, suitable in all respects as the main meal of the day;
(b) to provide facilities, including drinks, for pupils who choose to bring their own food.'.— [Mr. Fatchett.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Fatchett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be appropriate also to discuss new clause 5 — School Library Service—
'(1) It shall be the duty of local education authorities to make adequate arrangements for a schools library service which should include:

(i) a school library in every secondary school, with adequate staffing including the appointment where appropriate of duly qualified staff and chartered librarians.
(ii) professional advice and expertise available to every school in the local education authority.
(iii) supplementary materials and central services to support school libraries.
(iv) the provision of any information as the Secretary of State may require to carry out his duties under this section (below).

(2) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to:

(i) publish guidelines for school library provision, including stands for accommodation, staffing, stock provision and maintenance, after consultation with local education authorities, the relevant teachers' unions and the Library Association;
(ii) appoint sufficient professional librarians to Her Majesty's Inspectorate to ensure adequate inspection of school libraries.
(iii) the provision of adequate finance to local authorities for the production of development plans for school libraries and school library services; and
(iv) the collection and publication of statistics of primary and secondary school libraries and school library services.'.

Mr. Fatchett: I bring some novelty to the proceedings for those who served on the Committee in that I raise a new subject. New clause 4 would extend the remit and scope of the Bill by providing a statutory framework for the provision of school meals.
There is no doubt that the school meals service has been under constant and pernicious attack from the Government. The record since 1979 is clear. The Education Act 1980 removed the compulsory requirement for local authorities to provide nutritional standards in terms of school meals. Subsequently—and, many would argue, much more damaging—there have been regular cuts in the amount of money available for the school meals service. In 1978–79, the last year of the Labour Government, £693·7 million was spent on the school meals service in real terms. By 1983–84, that had been reduced to £445 million, a reduction of about 30 per cent. The impact of these Government changes are evident in the school meals service.
Children and parents are paying more for the provision of school meals. The service is changing, and many would argue that it has changed for the worse in many respects. The number of children taking school meals has declined constantly since the Government came into office. In 1974,


64·1 per cent. of children were taking school meals. By 1984, that percentage had fallen to 51·3 per cent. There was a slight increase in 1983–84, but under this Government the general pattern has been a decline in the number of children taking school meals.
There is firm evidence about the value of school meals for all children, particularly for those who come from poorer and less well-off families. A Department of Health and Social Security report of April 1986 on the diet of British schoolchildren says:
The free school meal is an important factor in the welfare of children from families receiving state benefits. It appeared to be at least responsible for keeping the energy intakes, particularly of older children from these families, up to the levels of the rest of the schoolchild population.
12 midnight
Further support for that view comes from the British Dietetic Association in a report called "Can I afford the diet?" It makes the point that the provision of school meals is of crucial importance for individual children.
Further support for that contention came from Sir Douglas Black. He will be remembered for his report on inequalities in health. On 14 July he wrote to The Guardian. He quoted from his report and then said:
In our view any reduction in the provision of school meals or in eligibility for free school meals would mean putting further at risk the development of significant numbers of children ….Nothing has changed except the accumulation of medical evidence showing that children need to be adequately nourished to achieve their potential for healthy growth and development. In view of this and the increase in public awareness and concern about the nation's health, this move"—
I shall refer to that later in relation to the Social Security Bill—
by the Government seems the height of folly.
That is clear evidence that school meals provide a valuable service to children and to parents.
The alternative to the school meals service can be seen in very many towns and schools. Children are eating junk food or convenience food. Their diet is unbalanced. Because of the price of school meals, children are forced to eat cheaper, convenience food that has less nutritional value. This Government are responsible for the health of the children of this country. Their school meals policy will lead to a further deterioration in the health of our children, particularly those from poorer families. The Minister appears to object to that point, but had he read the Black report he would recognise that inequalities in health are related to the factors to which I have referred. I should be delighted to hear of any evidence to the contrary that he is able to produce.
There is clear objective evidence that the school meals service is valued. There is also clear evidence that, determinedly over seven years, this Government have tried to run down the school meals service.
That is not the whole picture, however. Worse is to come. Either directly or indirectly, this Government are likely further to threaten the school meals service. It is indirect, in the sense that those local authorities that have been squeezed by the public expenditure cuts are likely to follow Hereford, Worcestershire, Lincolnshire and Dorset in reducing the school meals service.
When the Minister replies to the debate, I should like him to say whether he supports the decision that will probably be taken by Buckinghamshire county council on

Thursday of this week to abolish the school meals service for those who are provided with free school meals and to substitute only a sandwich service. Are this Government, who claim to be the Government of the family, prepared to support Buckinghamshire county council's decision? It would help the deliberations of the county councillors there if the Minister made clear his views, because advice from the Minister might be heeded by his Conservative colleagues in Buckinghamshire.
There is that threat, but there is also a threat from the Social Security Bill which aims to restrict the scope of free school meals. It is estimated that those provisions will affect 470,000 children. That figure was used by the Government in the debate in the other place a few days ago. That Bill shows the lack of concern that the Government have for the school meals service. It is a valued service and it has been regularly attacked for seven years by the Government. It was attacked first by reducing the element of compulsory nutritional standards, secondly by reducing the amount of money spent on the service, and now by changes in the social security provisions which will further reduce the scope of the school meals service. I hope that the Government will give greater priority to the service, that is why we have tabled new clause 4 which would impose a statutory duty on each local authority.
At least 250,000 jobs are directly related to the school meals service and many of them are in areas where alternative employment is difficult to find. Many of the jobs provide not a second income for a family, but the first and only income. The Government seem to have no regard for those jobs, for the people who provide this important service, or for their conditions of employment, because they are keen to privatise the service. I hope that the House will support the clause and impose upon local authorities the duty to provide an adequate school meals service.
New clause 5 is somewhat different. New clause 4 deals with the body in a physical sense, while new clause 5 deals with the mind, the provision of a library service. The clause seeks to place a responsibility on local authorities and on the Department of Education and Science to provide an adequate library service in our secondary schools. The Government have cut the provision of money for the purchase of books. As a result, many school libraries have suffered and many teachers find it difficult to make the necessary provision. A library is an essential part of a secondary school and plays an essential part in a child's education. We want to encourage children to read books and to use libraries to broaden their minds. I hope that we can get support for the clause. Both clauses will help the health of children, one intellectually and one physically. I am sure that a Government who talk so much about the family will have no difficulty in accepting the clauses.

Mr. Cash: I hope that it is in order to speak to new clause 5. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) completely failed to examine the importance of having adequate and properly qualified people —chartered librarians — to run libraries, especially in schools. That must be done under the auspices of the Library Association. I mention schools, but of course the matter goes further and includes public libraries under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964.
For well over 10 years I have been legal adviser to the Library Association and have been much involved in many such questions as and when they have arisen. With the new technologies that are around today, and the new


opportunities that are open to people, it must be understood how important it is to have properly qualified librarians who are in a position to make an assessment, in this case on behalf of children, that will enable readers to be in receipt of well-ordered documentation, books and information.
It is often thought that libraries are about ordinary fiction, such as romantic novels, but that is far from being the case. Libraries provide the essential tools for learning and provide people, particularly children, with the means of acquiring knowledge. Therefore, it is essential to have properly qualified chartered librarians to run that service.
To believe that because they are chartered librarians there is a monopoly of work would be to misunderstand the aims and objects of the Library Association, of which Her Majesty The Queen is the patron. The association, with its code of ethics and its high professional standards, is in a position to ensure that children have at their disposal, as part of the clause says
sufficient professional librarians
in
Her Majesty's Inspectorate to ensure
that children receive the kind of education that they should have.
One of the main objects of chartered bodies, which is frequently forgotten by some of them — I shall not mention them by name, but it is a matter of first importance to record the fact — is to put the public interest first, and not remuneration. I shall not go into the merits of the clause, with which I have not been associated. In the interests of children and their education, it is important to stress the role of the chartered librarian, who conducts his affairs in a proper, professional and impartial manner on behalf of the children in the school in which he serves.

Mr. Tom Pendry: I shall be brief, not just because my friendly Whip has asked me to be so, but because my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) has done such a first-class job from the Front Bench. If there is a third reason, it is that those on the Conservative Benches are becoming a little restless.
I begin by declaring my interests in this important debate—not only in the interest shared by my right hon. and hon. Friends of caring that our children have a square meal at school, but also my interest as chairman of the group of hon. Members sponsored by the National Union of Public Employees. The group has been active in ensuring that the Government recognise the need for a good schools meal service. We have been active in attempting to resist the cuts that some authorities have been proposing.
We know that soon the House will be asked to pass, in another Bill, provisions that will ensure that only children whose parents are on income support will receive free school meals, while families on family credit will receive a woefully inadequate sum for school meals per week per child. Discretionary grants will not be permitted if clause 73 of the Social Security Bill is passed into law.
Against that background, we are arguing for new clause 4. It is vital that we insert some sanity into the sorry business of the decline of our school meals service. We wish to ensure that all schoolchildren eat a nutritionally balanced meal in the middle of the day. For those who

choose not to do so, our new clause states that appropriate facilities should be afforded to them to enjoy another type of meal with a drink.
I should like to believe that this is not a party political issue, but that would be naive in the extreme. However, it certainly should not be party political. Conservative Members should share our concern that the children of the parents whom they represent are fed properly. Three weeks ago the London Food Commission reported that people on low incomes were being forced to cut back on food to make ends meet. Food poverty is a growing problem as it is, without inflicting that on our very young. In 1985, despite cut-backs by certain local authorities, aided and abetted by central Government, more than 1·4 million free school meals were served each day in this country. Moreover, 680,000 such meals were served to children whose parents were on supplementary benefit, 170,000 to the children of those in receipt of family Income supplement and 300,000 to those benefiting from discretionary schemes. Although pupil rolls will undouibtedly fall during the next few years, even the Department of Education and Science has estimated an overall increase in free school meals of over 100,000 between 1984–85 and 1987–88. But that will not come about if the Social Security Bill is enacted.
Those of us who support new clause 4 do so because we are aware that in our schools the junk food generation of children are already suffering nutritionally. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central has said, there is plenty of evidence to prove that. Indeed, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who is also a member of the NUPE group, would like to highlight the problems. We know that the Elephant and Castle is not a million miles away from Walworth road but it is not as yet under the control of the national executive committee of the Labour party. Yet the report of the DHSS shows that many of our children are putting themselves at real risk of heart disease and some cancers later in life by frequenting cafes and chip shops at lunch time.
However, the DHSS report got things wrong in one important respect. It is not the children who want to eat badly, but they are being forced to do so by certain Government and local authority actions. Those bodies are creating that risk for our youngsters. On 2 May, I asked the Under-Secretary of State to list 30 local authorities in England that are restricting the provision of free school meals to those whose parents are in receipt of supplementary benefit. He listed them, and all but one o them was Conservative controlled.
Conservative Members have been given fair warning that, if they vote to ensure that the junk food era continues, the Labour party, NUPE, and many other organisations—many of which are not used to political action—will join battle with the Government and with the Tory-controlled authorities and will closely monitor how Conservative Members stand on this issue.
Buckinghamshire county council is to make its decision on Thursday. I echo what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central, in that we expect the Minister to come clean when he replies to the debate. The council would be extremely foolhardy to abolish the school meals service. If the council goes ahead, 1,700 hardworking school meal ladies in that county will be sacked on Thursday. They have given loyal service to the county, and have offered to talk with the authority on how best


to improve the service. However, no one has listened to them. It was noticeable that the private contractors who were called in could not improve on the service given by them. Before I came to the House, I had the pleasure to represent many of those ladies. I can honestly say that they are the hardest working people. During the short time that they provide those meals, they work in a clammy climate at a tremendous pace, and all for little pay. They deserve more than they will get on Thursday if Buckinghamshire county council goes ahead.
On top of that, the council is going ahead after Milton Keynes health authority stated that 60 per cent. of the 8,000 poorest children who reside in the county area are entitled to free school meals. The authority is opposed to Buckinghamshire county council's plan. Some 70 per cent. of the people in the county who responded to the consultative document have said that they are in favour of a school meal provision. I wonder whether the Tory party really believes that it will win Milton Keynes at the next election or any of the authorities that will be hit in that way. Tory Members are living in cloud cuckoo land if they believe that.
I hope that we can get the response that we want from the Government on new clause 4 so that we can stop the Buckinghamshires of this world from going down that road, because the children's health is at risk, and we have a duty in the House to ensure that they get a fair, square meal every day. That is incumbent on the Government, too. I shall listen attentively to the Minister's response.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), I declare an interest in the debate, as a sponsored Member from the National Union of Public Employees and a former full-time official of that union dealing to a large extent with the school meals service. As a former member of an education authority, I am well aware of the problems that education authorities have in dealing with the school meals system and trying to provide a decent school meal for all their children. I do not pretend that the clause does anything more than take us back in legal terms to the 1979 position. That would be an enormous improvement on what we now have because the past seven years have been ones of unremitting war, declared by central Government, against the principle of a school meals service, while at every opportunity, like Pontius Pilate, they wring their hands and say, "It is up to the local education authority to provide the service," and deliberately create the conditions in which it is almost impossible to provide a decent school meals service.
In putting forward the new clause, we have to say that the school meals service was created because many children from working class homes were not getting proper meals during the day—

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has never been in a working class home.

Mr. Corbyn: They were therefore given —[Interruption.] It is easy for the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), who has two jobs —[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Grantham, who seems anxious to prevent hon. Members from being heard in the debate, has two jobs and therefore has an adequate income on which he can come here and abuse his position

as a Member of Parliament and try to destroy the school meals service. [Interruption.] If he has anything to say, he could stand up and say it, but he will not prevent me from speaking. [Interruption.] As much as he drones on from a sedentary position—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) must restrain himself.

Mr. Corbyn: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
As I was saying, the hon. Member for Grantham has an adequate income from his two jobs, and perhaps he could spend his time doing some of his job as the hon. Member for Grantham rather than his lucrative legal practice elsewhere. [Interruption.] I wish that some of the children who tomorrow will lose their free school meal could get hold of the hon. Gentleman and knock some sense and manners into his head. Tomorrow, those children, presumably on the vote of the hon. Member for Grantham, will lose their free school meal entitlement under the Social Security Bill. The hon. Member ought to think about what his Government and his vote will do to the school meal services.
In the past seven years, there has been, as I said before the hon. Member for Grantham started his interruptions, a process of unremitting war against the school meal service. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) pointed out, there was the removal of nutritional standards. Then there was the removal of the requirement to provide a free school meal service. Following the introduction of the grant-related expenditure assessment formulae, there was the process of rate capping. In every sense the pressure was on local authorities to increase the costs of the meal to the children, to reduce the number of staff providing that meal and thus contribute to a cycle of undernourished children and unemployed school meal workers. This clause is trying to halt that process.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde and myself have been involved with the school meal service and we are aware that the school meal workers, a large majority of whom are women, work extremely hard, in difficult circumstances and for low wages. When authorities, at the request of the women, asked that a bonus scheme should be considered, they discovered that many of those women were already working at bonus levels of performance. Such women have been eligible for a bonus scheme for many years because of the rate at which they were forced to work in some kitchens.
In the midst of all these attacks on the school meal services—the removal of nutritional standards and the removal of the legal requirement to provide a school meal service — those who work in the school meals service have sought to seek imaginative changes to the service.
In certain places, there has been a great improvement in the school meal service. Ethnic catering has been introduced and thus children of different religious backgrounds have been adequately catered for by the service. Breakfast, more salad dishes and a high fibre diet have also been introduced. Where it has been possible—with the agreement of the authority—there have been great improvements.
Reports on the Haringey school meal service and the service offered by the ILEA should be compared with those authorities which have destroyed the school meal service and which have substituted for it just a sandwich. A disgraceful thing to do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde mentioned the decisions which will be taken tomorrow when the Social Security Bill comes back to the Floor of the House. The Committee on the Bill was lobbied by a group of school meal workers. They were patient and explained to those Committee members to whom it was possible to speak, what their job entailed, how important that service was and how they feared the loss of the principle of free school meals provided by the local education authorities.
Tomorrow, the House will have the opportunity to ensure that halt a million children from the poorest households in Britain have the opportunity to have free school meal—it is important part of their diet. Tonight, we have the opportunity to reinstate the principle of the legal requirement on every local education authority to provide a school meal service. That would prevent Buckinghamshire county council voting, on Thursday morning, to abolish the free school meal service.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde mentioned that there would be 1,700 jobs lost. It would also mean a large number of school children going without a meal—they would be forced to get chips and eat junk food. That would cause a cycle of nutritional deprivation which is prevalent among British children but which is not necessarily obvious among children of equivalent industrialised countries.
We are deliberately undernourishing a whole generation and we are deliberately destroying a valuable school meals service. I hope that we can agree that this clause would prevent Buckinghamshire county council from doing the unthinkable on Thursday. It would also call a halt to the completely vicious and illogical cycle under which we destroy a school meals service in order to dismiss the cooks and the catering workers and thus prevent the children from getting a school meal in the middle of the day.
We are in the middle of a ludicrous process. I hope that the House will recognise the importance and value of the service, and of the work that predominantly women school meal workers do. Hon. Members should contrast the comforts of their lives with the hardships of working-class women and children that will result from the destruction of the service. The service is a measure of society's concern for the health of children and for women workers, and it should be preserved.

Mr. Dunn: I must congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), who has turned into some sort of butterfly — perhaps a Red Admiral — since Standing Committee, when he was a caterpillar. I thought that his speech was rather good.
I shall deal with new clause 5 first. Such a clause is unacceptable because it would seek to pre-empt local decisions about spending and other priorities, by legislating for the school library service in a way which means that it is bound to take a larger proportion of resources. Local freedom to decide priorities for expenditure should not be fettered in that way.
As to new clause 4, I thought that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) displayed all the innocence, naivety and ignorance of a person who obviously came down with the last shower of rain. He was totally

unrealistic, totally unfair and totally obtuse in his approach to the debate. I am glad that he declared his interest in the matter.

Mr. Corbyn: Have you ever been to a school kitchen?

Mr. Dunn: I have been to many school kitchens, and I dare say that I can swap blow for blow an account of deprivation, whether the urban or the rural variety, with the hon. Gentleman. I suspect that I know a lot more about deprivation than the hon. Member ever will should he live a thousand years.
The main effect of new clause 4 would be to place on local education authorities a duty to provide a meal as specified in the new clause, which no, or only a few, pupils might want on any given day. It would be unreasonable to compel local education authorities to set up and maintain the elaborate arrangements that would be needed in such circumstances. It would not be an efficient way in which to run a local authority or any other type of service: It is surely right for the local authority, which is responsible to its own local electorate, to decide, in the light of local circumstances, the right way in which to go about the lunchtime arrangements of pupils in its schools.
There are two other aspects of the new clause on which I ought to comment — first, the stipulation that provision should he made for a meal suitable in all respects as the main meal of the day. That is putting the clock back. The Government removed that requirement in 1980 under pressure from local education authorities, which told us that it was too restrictive and too centralist. As the law now stands, it is for local education authorities to decide what it is appropriate to provide. They can and do take the advice of community dieticians, health education arid home economics advisers and catering managers arid organisers.
Secondly, there is the curious paragraph (b), which would impose the duty to provide drinks for those who bring their own food. Local education authorities already have a duty to provide such facilities as they consider appropriate. I do not believe that it can be necessary to legislate to the effect that pupils can have a drink of water at lunchtime. I am afraid that the new clause is misconceived, and I ask the House to reject it, and new clause 5.

Mr. Fatchett: I was fascinated by the Minister's opening imagery, because while I had difficulty in understanding it in relation to myself, I had even greater difficulty in understanding it in relation to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn).
I shall not delay the House by dealing at length with the remarks of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), who is no longer in his place. I agreed broadly with the valuable points that he made about new clause 5.
Those who read the Official Report of the debate will be disappointed to note that the Minister did not acknowledge the situation that is likely to develop in Buckinghamshire, that he did not show any concern for the 1,700 jobs that will be affected and that the did not refer to the effect of a decision on the children of Buckinghamshire. I assume that the Minister's silence on those issues meant that he would support any cuts in the school meals service.
There will also be disappointment at the fact that the Minister did not comment on some of the arguments that were adduced on convenience and junk foods, on the


bearing of that on the 1980 Act and on the ending of the obligations that were placed on local authorities. I had hoped that the Minister would say whether he thought the provision of sandwiches was sufficient for youngsters, or whether more should be provided. If he believes that more should be provided, the new clause is the answer.
As the hour is late, as we have had an opportunity to raise some issues that are important to us, and as we have demonstrated that a division exists between the two sides of the House on the important issue of the school meals service, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Further consideration of the Bill adjourned. —[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee) to be further considered this day.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Wednesday 23rd July, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 4 (Prayers against statutory instruments, &amp;c. (negative procedure)), the Motion in the name of Mr. Neil Kinnock relating to Social Security (S.I., 1986, No. 1250) may be proceeded with, though opposed, for one and a half hours after it has been entered upon, and if proceedings thereon have not been disposed of at the end of that period Mr. Speaker shall then put the Question.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

PETITION

Irena Ratushinskaya

Mr. Michael Stern: I beg to ask leave to present a petition signed by 51 members of St. Peter's Church, Filton, in my constituency, relating to Irena Ratushinskaya, who is the subject of two early-day motions, No. 420, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), and No. 611, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley).
The petition relates to a poetess who is confined in a Soviet labour camp, allegedly for writing poetry. She is said to be in poor health and her husband and fellow prisoners fear that her life may be in danger.
I feel sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House will join the petitioners in asking the Foreign Secretary and other Members of the Government to make representations to the Soviet Government with the aim of obtaining the release of Mrs. Ratushinskaya and for her to receive an urgently needed medical assessment of her condition and treatment. I willingly add my support to the representations of the petitioners.

To lie upon the Table.

The British Approvals Board for Telecommunications

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I am grateful to the Minister for turning out at this late hour and for this opportunity to initiate a debate on a matter relating to high technology.
The story that I have to tell is about a small firm which has done what the Government are saying should be done but which, in the process, has been all but killed off by a Government-sponsored body. I have not chosen this particular firm because it has suffered an especial injustice or been the victim of a level of incompetence which is unusual. Unfortunately, the contrary is the case. The point of my story, which concerns Kirk Automation of Cinderford in Gloucestershire, is that it is all too chillingly typical. What Kirk Automation has suffered mirrors the experiences of many other similar high technology firms throughout Britain. Their businesses have been threatened, their employees laid off, their orders lost and their futures placed in jeopardy by the unbelievable incompetence, unacceptable delay, unreasonable expense and unimaginable bureaucracy foisted on them by the British Approvals Board for Telecommunications. The BABT is not in any way connected with British Telecom. That connection has been mistakenly made and BT has been blamed for BABT's mistakes. In this case BT is blameless.
Kirk Automation was founded by a young technologist, Kevin Kirk, in 1983. It specialises in manufacturing equipment for data communications—the very area in which the Secretary of State and the Minister have told us that Britain could and should be a world leader. It started as what is known in the trade as a legendary "garden shed" firm. Like Hewlett Packard, the giant United States hi-tech multinational, Kirk Automation started in a room so small that there was not room for both employees to work at the same time. One had to work during the day while the other came in to work in the evening.
The firm grew fast and now, less than three years after it was originally founded, employs, or employed 27 people and turns over, or did turn over before BABT got its hands on it, £500,000 a year. Last year the firm received an award for taking on more young people than any other firm of equivalent size in Gloucestershire. Turnover was predicted to double to £1 million next year. The firm has obtained orders from abroad, especially from Holland, and has significantly broken into the big market—a difficult market. The computer games giant, Atari, for example, is one of its customers.
By any definition the firm is the model of what the Prime Minister and the Government tell us a small firm should be. It is a positive fairy tale, and perhaps too much like a 'fairy tale, because now on cue enters stage left the wicked uncle, or, to be more precise, the bungling ogre in the shape of the BABT. The firm's mistake was to produce a piece of equipment that required BABT's approval. Last year it produced the "Magic Modem". For the benefit of the non-technically minded, a modem is a piece of equipment attached to a telephone line, enabling data to be passed through the telephone network. The Kirk


Automation Magic Modem is at the centre of our story. It is a small box, that will cost about £60 in the market place, but the final bill for testing will be no less than £10,000—two and a half times the original estimate.
Like everything the firm did, its Magic Modem proved a market winner. Prestel showed immediate interest, so the firm decided to get the modem checked over by Teleproof, the commercial consultancy arm of BT, the laboratories of which are in the same place as BABT at Wharf road in London. Not only are their laboratories in the same place, but they share the same facilities, the same people, the same tests and even the same paperwork, as I shall show later.
Teleprools engineers commented that the modem was
a beautiful piece of kit",
and recommended that it should be passed to BABT for testing immediately. In November of last year Kirk Automation submitted the modem to BA BT for testing, which was estimated at a quite staggering cost of £4,000. I shall leave that aside for the moment.
By December, absolutely nothing had happened. After several telephone calls, BABT said that the modem was still on the shelf, untouched, as I understand it, and that it did not have enough staff and was moving premises. Kevin Kirk, the founder of Kirk Automation, decided to investigate matters for himself and applied for a job at BABT. He was told that no one with less than a master's degree should apply. The pay was so low that no one with a master's degree would dream of applying. No wonder there was a staff shortage.
Meanwhile, orders and interest in the Magic Modem were building up. Unichem, the high street chemist chain, wanted to place a modem in all its shops up and down the country, but that could not be done until the modem had received BABT approval. Amstrad, the major and successful computer manufacturer, similarly showed considerable interest, but the modem required approval first.
In January of this year, Kirk frustrated because of the lack of progress, wrote to the local MP, the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland), who has done a first-class job in chasing up the case. The firm also sent letters to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and to the Prime Minister complaining about the delay.
No doubt because of that pressure, the head of BABT, who is for some unaccountable reason an ex-Army colonel, eventually contacted the firm personally. Colonel Vivers explained that the delay was all because Kirk had not filled in the application forms correctly. That was three months after submitting the forms.
Several minor questions were sorted out over the telephone. However, the main reason for the delay was revealed to be the fact that Kirk Automation had circled rather than ticked a box on one of the forms. By the end of February, still nothing had been heard from BABT. Approaches to Kirk's MP, the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West, as well as to the Secretary of State and Oftel, seemed to have no effect on Colonel Vivers and his staff.
That is not to say that BABT was not doing anything — quite the contrary. It was busy sending Kirk Automation demands for more money. The final bill for its approval turned out to be £10,000, against its original estimate of £4,000. When one looks at BABT's charges, one can understand why that happened. Every time the

small front plate, which the Minister might like to notice here, was changed so that the logo could be changed, BABT charged £750 for the testing.
BABT found one single fault with the modem, in a cable clamp, which had to be replaced and re-tested according to British Standard 415. BS 415 specifies that that must take one minute and 20 seconds. BABT's charges for that one minute and 20 seconds-worth of testing were a staggering £185, which equates with an hourly rate of £8,325. That is what BABT thinks it appropriate to charge.
I digress from the main line of the story. By April, there was still nothing from BABT. At this stage, Kirk Automation ran out of money and was on the verge of bankruptcy. The firm was saved only by the faith of a friendly bank manager in what it could and might do. Barclays came to the rescue.
The result of the delays was severe. The firm had to lay off progressively 23 of its 27 employees, including the general manager. The firm was reduced to the three-man complement of the garden shed days three years previously. Kirk Automation contacted BABT every day, but always in vain.
In mid-April there was a rumour that Colonel Vivers might be leaving BABT, but that proved to be false. At last, at the end of April, Kirk Automation received interim approval for the modem, five months after it was submitted for testing.
That is not the end of the story, because interim approval means that the company can produce only a limited number of units. However, it was able to re-engage some staff, who duly worked flat out on massive overtime to save the firm and catch up on undelivered orders.
Kirk Automation has still not received final approval for its modem. It is still in BABT's laboratory at Wharf road, in an office next door to where it received a glowing report from a Teleproof engineer nine month ago. The tests that are being carried out are the same as those which took place nine months ago. The people carrying out the tests are the same as those who were undertaking the tests nine months ago. The laboratories are the same and even the paperwork, with one small exception, is exactly the same as that which was involved nine months ago. Yet nine months have passed and Kirk Automation is £10,000 the poorer. Its orders have been lost and its staff laid off. Its viability has been undermined. As a result of its inability to meet orders, I am told that the company is being sued or pursued by suppliers and customers alike.
I do not accuse BABT of trying deliberately to destroy this small high technology firm and its products. I have no doubt that it has done so by accident, but it could not have done so more efficiently if it had planned and designed this precise outcome.
Unhappily, this is not an isolated incident. Mr. Terry Bartram of the Telecom Dealers Association tells me that the problem is widespread. It appears that there is massive and broadly felt dissatisfaction in BABT and in the industry it serves. Even if all goes well, it appears that it takes six months to get approval for the most simple piece of telecommunications equipment. By the Telecom Dealers Association's calculations, at least 50 per cent. of this time is spent in administration.
Unfortunately, there is more. BABT now seems to be delaying, if not actually refusing, approval of subscriber call forwarding equipment, otherwise known as the call diverter. When approved, this equipment will be in direct


competition with British Telecom's exchange based call forwarding equipment, for which BT is able, as a current monopoly supplier of the service, to charge an exorbitant rental and secure a substantial income. I am advised that one can purchase a non-BT manufactured diverter from a well-known telecommunications equipment supplier for half the price of BT's annual rental charge. That is the annual rental charge. The public might justifiably ask why this equipment is not being approved. Who is pressing whom and for what reason?
I understand that Oftel has now accumulated a mounting pile of complaints about BART, its delays, its overcharging and its inefficiencies. Things have become so bad that manufacturers are now deciding to make their new equipment outside Britain. For instance, Kirk Automation has received an order from Atari for one of its new designs, but Atari has insisted that this piece of equipment is built offshore, out of Britain, to avoid BABT's clammy hands.
Things are different abroad. The French Government have supplied 100 per cent. support for their telecommunications industry and are practically giving away free models to all telecom subscribers. A PABX exchange, which would cost £12,000 and take six weeks to receive approval in Germany, costs no less than a quarter of a million pounds and can take 18 months to obtain BABT approval in Britain. How can British industry hope to compete in this situation?
I should be grateful if the Minister would address himself specifically to the following questions. To whom, ultimately, is BABT responsible? Should it not be made responsible ultimately to a body such as Oftel? When will the Birtwistle report be published? Incidentally, Birtwistle is the name of yet another ex-Army colonel. I am not quite sure why ex-Army colonels seem to hold such important positions in our telecommunications industry, but no doubt there is a reason for that. Colonel Birtwistle has now been writing his report for nine months; surely it must now be nearing completion.
Most important of all, will the Minister understand the scale of the problem with BABT? Does he recognise that the cause is inadequacy and incompetence within BABT itself? Does he understand the damage that is being done to small high technology firms in an area where Britain still has some strength and where the Government say, quite rightly, that we can become a world leader? If the Minister understands all that, and I hope he does, what on earth does he intend to do about it?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Butcher): I thank the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) for raising this subject today. I entirely agree that unreasonable barriers should not be placed before small companies that wish to bring new products into a growth market in which there are opportunities not just domestically but internationally for British companies in high added value, high technology engineering.
I shall try to answer the three questions posed by the hon. Gentleman about the Birtwistle report, the route through which the British Approvals Board for

Telecommunications should report and the rate of progress that BABT has been able to achieve over the past three years or so.
Perhaps, however, it is helpful to begin by recapping why we have an approvals system, and why it is operated as it is. Telecommunications equipment is different from almost any other set of products in that it interfaces and interacts with a public communications network, sending electrical signals across the carrier's infrastructure and receiving signals from other attachments. This raises issues concerning the safety of the equipment, not just for users but also for network operators and employees. Moreover, characteristics of particular attachments affect the performance of the network, not just for users of that attachment and those whom they are calling, but potentially also for all other users of the network. For that reason, all telecommunications administrations require that equipment to be attached to their networks meets minimum standards of safety and performance, most commonly through a type-approval scheme.
Until 1981, responsibility for equipment approval lay solely with British Telecom, which had the network monopoly. With the introduction of competition in network operation and equipment supply, it became desirable and necessary to establish an independent mechanism for setting standards for attachment equipment and adjudicating whether particular products met those standards. Hence the setting up of BABT which advises the Secretary of State, who is the formal standards and approvals authority.
The aim was to create an independent and objective system, fair and equitable to all equipment suppliers, which could ensure the integrity of public networks and the safety of users and operators. It should he appreciated that, in doing this, we were replacing well-established arrangements, which were able to operate as flexibly or indeed as arbitrarily as BT chose. One immediate feature of an objective and independent system is that it requires published and comprehensive rules and procedures, which the hon. Gentleman referred to as more bureaucracy, whilst those operating it must build up their own resources and expertise — expertise which, due to the increased demand liberalisation has helped to stimulate, is in short supply. That is the paradoxical price of opening telecommunications markets to competition. The reward is more fairness, more openness and easier access to the market for new suppliers.
In the early days of liberalisation, everyone involved was engaged on finding a way forward, both approvals applicants and regulators alike. Delays occurred whilst they familiarised themselves with the requirements. There was a learning curve to go through. The increased output of approvals shows the results of this. However, greater familiarity with the market opportunities liberalisation is bringing has itself brought new companies with new products into the market. They too, like their predecessors, are having to go through a learning process whilst BABT is dealing with more and more applications. No one denies the need for a type approvals regime. Suppliers remind us that many overseas telecommunications administrations place great store on products having been approved in the United Kingdom. Our aim in the approvals process is to protect this reputation and at the same time ensure that United Kingdom customers have


the choice of the latest technology while suppliers are able to introduce their new products with the minimal necessary constraints.
At this stage I can provide part of an answer to the hon. Gentleman's specific questions. He will wish to know the rate of approvals recommended by BABT. In 1983, at a very early stage, there were five. In 1984 there were 114. In 1985 there were 257. In the first and second quarters of 1986 there have been 163 approvals. The rate is growing dramatically, and we are here referring to the non-routine approvals. Those are major and significant new products coming into the market.
No one has denied the need for a type approvals regime, but the question is how that regime is operated. The hon. Gentleman has sought to place before the House the particular example of one company's experience in order to illustrate some of the problems.
The Kirk Automation Ltd. case illustrates the problems of transition, both for BABT and for companies. It is quite unfair to blame BABT for all the time taken, or for all the costs entailed. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that the procedure works as follows. On receipt of an application for type approval, BABT checks that the proper documentation has been supplied. It determines which standards are relevant and that may entail special exercises for novel products. It seeks tenders for testing from designated test houses, currently British Standards Institution and BT laboratories, and then advises applicants of the lowest bid and seeks their go-ahead and payment of the test fees. If a company has no previous BABT approvals, BABT checks its production and quality capabilities. BABT must then wait for the completed test results and verify them before advising OFTEL and thence the DTI to issue an approval.
That, of itself, takes time. More significantly, delays can and do arise which are not due to BABT. For example, forms may be completed incorrectly. With new products, there can be uncertainty whether appropriate standards exist. It takes time for test houses to respond to tender requests. It takes time for applicants to accept test houses' bids and to send their advance payment. It takes time to get products tested—test houses have been overloaded—or re-tested if some tests are failed and products need modification as quite often happens. Such non-BABT delays are most common for the smaller companies without experience of system. I note carefully what the hon. Gentleman has said about the needs of small companies in particular. Many of the delays in Kirk's case were outside BABT's control.
Delays and high costs are not acceptable, and I shall come on to actions in hand to reduce them. I shall first set things in context, and say a little about BABT. Most approvals still have no BABT involvement. Equipment for attachment to private circuits and enhancements to products originally approved by BT are still approved through BT. Since liberalisation, nearly 6,000 new approvals have been granted, 529 through BABT. But those 529 BA BT-approved products are generally the more important ones, and the balance of new approvals will quickly shift towards BABT as the old pre-liberalisation products are replaced with new ones.
Overall, the system is working in a way which has helped achieve unprecedented consumer choice and greatly reduced real prices of attachments, while adequately safeguarding the public networks. Although approvals procedures in some other countries are on the

face of it simpler and cheaper, in practice there are few other countries where all suppliers — not just those admitted to a PTT "club"—can have such a range of attachment products approved without bias or favour. That factor should be highlighted.
We do not underestimate the difficulties at BABT. The biggest single problem has been difficulties in recruiting professional engineering staff. Following a management review last year, BABT was given greater management autonomy. It moved to new offices, computerised its accounts, and recruited a further seven engineers to work on approvals and support functions. Those changes have helped reduce the backlog of applications to one third the level of last summer. A further improvement in the service offered should follow from the opening of additional new test facilities by Hull city telephone company and Standard Telephone Laboratories.
However, more radical changes are necessary to ensure further improvements. In particular, we need to reduce the bureaucracy of the approvals machinery, both in procedures and in responsibilities.
One problem to which the hon. Gentleman referred has been the overlapping interests of DTI and OFTEL since the Telecommunications Act 1984. Under that Act responsibility for the approval of contractors, approval of apparatus and designation of standards was placed with the Secretary of State, who could delegate that authority to the Director General for Telecommunications. In practice most day-to-day administrative responsibility for these matters, and hence "hands-on" expertise, has been with OFTEL, although formal responsibility has remained with the Secretary of State. In order to provide a clear focus for action, and eliminate duplicated responsibilities, the Secretary of State intends issuing a general authorisation under sections 20(1), 22(1) and 22(6) of the Act, delegating full responsibility to the Director General for approvals and standards matters—except in areas where international considerations override the requirements for domestic standards to be designated. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter forward today because the debate has allowed the House to share that information which I have no doubt will be communicated to the appropriate parties.
This change should facilitate subsequent decisions over other improvements which are under consideration. I know that time is pressing. I can give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking that I will examine the blow by blow account that he has presented. If need be, the hon. Gentleman and I can talk about these matters in detail in my office, and discuss the lessons of this particular path to approval.
There are two other areas where it is legitimate for the Government to act. The first is to simplify standards, and we are hopeful that the Birtwistle report will be produced speedily. The second area in which the Government can act is to increase the options available to applicants in the number of laboratories available to do the testing. As I said earlier, we are doubling the number of laboratories from two to four.
Those are the two areas of major bottleneck. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman will wish to discuss with me the options for further reassurance on the working of BABT which has been the import of the hon. Gentleman's remarks tonight. I hope that my remarks will satisfy the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Ashdown: The Minister's remarks have been extremely helpful and they will be widely welcomed in those areas afflicted by this particular problem. I should be grateful if he would spend a little time considering the real problem, which relates to the time involved. The competitiveness of small firms has been so significantly undermined through problems related to time. As the Minister said earlier, I hope that he will press BABT to ensure that the time for approval is reduced to the level that exists in Germany and elsewhere on the continent in competitor nations.

Mr. Butcher: I am prepared to consider that point. That has exercised our attention for some time and we are anxious that we do not build non-tariff barriers against our domestic producers. We are keeping the position closely under review in relation to the interests if small firms, many of which we hope will become big firms in this growth area. The hon. Gentleman's views are echoed elsewhere and, for that reason and for the reasons that he has deployed tonight, I am prepared to become involved in discussions with him about the lessons of this story, including the question of time scale.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past One o'clock.